MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2178765432 · doi:10.5864/d2013-011

Reducing cardiovascular health impacts from traffic-related noise and air pollution: intervention strategies

2013· article· en· W2178765432 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Jason Curran, Helen Ward, Mona Shum, Hugh Davies

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Health Review · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsVancouver Native Health SocietyUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPublic Health AgencyPublic Health Agency of Canada
KeywordsPsychological interventionAir pollutionPollutantEnvironmental healthEnvironmental scienceIntervention (counseling)PollutionMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies suggest that exposure to both traffic-related air pollution (TrAP) and to road traffic noise (RTN) are independent risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). While the exact pathophysiologic mechanisms are not known, plausible biological models exist for both associations. This paper describes interventions and mitigating measures aimed at reducing both air and noise pollution emitted from traffic. Nine types of interventions are examined within the four strategic themes of (i) land-use planning and transportation management, (ii) reduction of vehicle emissions, (iii) modification of existing structures, and (iv) behavioral change. Not all interventions result in concomitant reductions of air and noise pollutant exposures. Most interventions that rely on a scientific basis to reduce CVD are directed at reducing TrAP. Interventions identified with the greatest potential benefits focus on the pollutant source, such as reductions in traffic volume and air pollutant emissions, and are more easily realized, and likely cheaper, if they are considered in the land-use planning stages with less reliance on behavioral changes.

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.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.326 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2013
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Health ReviewSame topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207