Analysis and Comparison of Urban Air Quality Management in China, Korea and Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the past few years, the problems of urban air pollution became increasingly serious in many countries.In this paper, the comparison and analysis of air quality between developed and developing countries, such as Korea, China, and Thailand, were proposed.In detail, the state of air quality, state of air quality monitoring stations, the standards of air quality, and air quality index classification in the three countries were analyzed.China had 1426 air quality monitoring stations, the most of among the three countries.It was concluded that particle pollution especially PM 2.5 and ozone pollution became the main pollution in the three countries.In comparison with the other two countries air quality standard, the first grade of air quality standard in China was the most rigorous.However, the second grade in China was lower than the ones of other two countries.The air quality standards of PM 2.5 in Korea and Thailand were merely same.Meanwhile, the standards of ozone and PM 10 , in Korea were tougher than the ones in Thailand.In terms of air quality index, China had a more delicate air quality index classification than the other two countries.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".