MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2260451370 · doi:10.1021/acs.est.5b04444

Field Measurements of Gasoline Direct Injection Emission Factors: Spatial and Seasonal Variability

2016· article· en· W2260451370 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Naomi Zimmerman, Jonathan M. Wang, Cheol–Heon Jeong, Manuel Ramos, Nathan Hilker, Robert M. Healy, Kelly Sabaliauskas, James S. Wallace, Greg J. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAUTO21 Network of Centres of ExcellenceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Foundation for Innovation
KeywordsGasolineEnvironmental scienceField (mathematics)Atmospheric sciencesSeasonalitySpatial variabilityEnvironmental chemistryMeteorologyGeographyChemistryWaste managementEngineeringGeologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four field campaigns were conducted between February 2014 and January 2015 to measure emissions from light-duty gasoline direct injection (GDI) vehicles (2013 Ford Focus) in an urban near-road environment in Toronto, Canada. Measurements of CO2, CO, NOx, black carbon (BC), benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene-xylenes (BTEX), and size-resolved particle number (PN) were recorded 15 m from the roadway and converted to fuel-based emission factors (EFs). Other than for NOx and CO, the GDI engine had elevated emissions compared to the Toronto fleet, with BC EFs in the 73rd percentile, BTEX EFs in the 80-90th percentile, and PN EFs in the 75th percentile during wintertime measurements. Additionally, for three campaigns, a second platform for measuring PN and CO2 was placed 1.5-3 m from the roadway to quantify changes in PN with distance from point of emission. GDI vehicle PN EFs were found to increase by up to 240% with increasing distance from the roadway, predominantly due to an increasing fraction of sub-40 nm particles. PN and BC EFs from the same engine technology were also measured in the laboratory. BC EFs agreed within 20% between the laboratory and real-world measurements; however, laboratory PN EFs were an order of magnitude lower due to exhaust conditioning.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.308
Threshold uncertainty score0.612

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations72
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Science & TechnologySame topicVehicle emissions and performanceFrench-language works237,207