MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2177439921 · doi:10.1080/10962247.2015.1096863

Air toxics in Canada measured by the National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) program and their relation to ambient air quality guidelines

2015· article· en· W2177439921 on OpenAlex
Elisabeth Galarneau, Daniel Wang, Ewa Dąbek-Złotorzyńska, May Siu, Valbona Celo, Mylaine Tardif, David Harnish, Ying Jiang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAir quality indexAir pollutionEnvironmental scienceAir monitoringWaste managementRelation (database)Indoor air qualityEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental healthMeteorologyEngineeringGeographyComputer scienceDatabaseChemistry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: This study reports ambient concentrations of 63 air toxics that were measured in Canada by the National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) program over the period 2009-2013. Measured concentrations are compared with ambient air quality guidelines from Canadian jurisdictions, and compounds that exceeded guidelines are identified and discussed. Although this study does not assess risk or cumulative effects, air toxics that approached guidelines are also identified so that their potential contribution to ambient air toxics pollution can be considered. Eleven air toxics exceeded at least one guideline, and an additional 16 approached guidelines during the study period. Four compounds were measured using methods whose detection limits exceeded a guideline value, three of which could not be compared with guidelines, since they were not detected in any samples. The assessment of several metal(loid) concentrations is tentative, since they were measured only in fine particulate matter (PM) but compared with guidelines based on coarse or total PM. Improvements to sampling and analysis techniques for the latter compounds as well as for those whose methods are subject to known uncertainties would improve confidence in reported concentrations and their relation to applicable guidelines. Analysis of sampling strategies for all compounds found to exceed or approach guidelines would contribute to ensuring that their spatiotemporal coverage is adequate. Examination of the air toxics not measured by NAPS but having guidelines in Canadian jurisdictions or being included in other programs such as the U.S. National-Scale Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) would contribute to ensuring that the full suite of pollutants relevant to ambient air quality in Canada is subject to adequate study. The results of this study can be applied to evaluating the effectiveness of toxic substances management in Canada. IMPLICATIONS: Recent measurements of 63 air toxics in Canada by the National Air Pollution Surveillance (NAPS) program showed that 11 compounds exceeded daily or annual ambient air quality guidelines and that an additional 16 compounds approached such guidelines within an order of magnitude. The results of this study can be applied to evaluating the effectiveness of toxic substances management in Canada and to identifying compounds that merit further investigation.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.714
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.059
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.259 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it