A land use regression model for ambient ultrafine particles in Montreal, Canada: A comparison of linear regression and a machine learning approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existing evidence suggests that ambient ultrafine particles (UFPs) (<0.1µm) may contribute to acute cardiorespiratory morbidity. However, few studies have examined the long-term health effects of these pollutants owing in part to a need for exposure surfaces that can be applied in large population-based studies. To address this need, we developed a land use regression model for UFPs in Montreal, Canada using mobile monitoring data collected from 414 road segments during the summer and winter months between 2011 and 2012. Two different approaches were examined for model development including standard multivariable linear regression and a machine learning approach (kernel-based regularized least squares (KRLS)) that learns the functional form of covariate impacts on ambient UFP concentrations from the data. The final models included parameters for population density, ambient temperature and wind speed, land use parameters (park space and open space), length of local roads and rail, and estimated annual average NOx emissions from traffic. The final multivariable linear regression model explained 62% of the spatial variation in ambient UFP concentrations whereas the KRLS model explained 79% of the variance. The KRLS model performed slightly better than the linear regression model when evaluated using an external dataset (R(2)=0.58 vs. 0.55) or a cross-validation procedure (R(2)=0.67 vs. 0.60). In general, our findings suggest that the KRLS approach may offer modest improvements in predictive performance compared to standard multivariable linear regression models used to estimate spatial variations in ambient UFPs. However, differences in predictive performance were not statistically significant when evaluated using the cross-validation procedure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".