MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2318320835 · doi:10.1021/es4023859

Human Health Impacts of Biodiesel Use in On-Road Heavy Duty Diesel Vehicles in Canada

2013· article· en· W2318320835 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mathieu Rouleau, Marika Egyed, Brett Taylor, Jack Chen, M. Samaali, Didier Davignon, Gilles Morneau

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Science & Technology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicVehicle emissions and performance
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltra-low-sulfur dieselBiodieselDiesel fuelEnvironmental scienceAir quality indexBiofuelLubricityWaste managementHuman healthEngineeringEnvironmental healthChemistryMedicineMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Regulatory requirements for renewable content in diesel fuel have been adopted in Canada. Fatty acid alkyl esters, that is, biodiesel, will likely be used to meet the regulations. However, the impacts on ambient atmospheric pollutant concentrations and human health outcomes associated with the use of biodiesel fuel blends in heavy duty diesel vehicles across Canada have not been evaluated. The objective of this study was to assess the potential human health implications of the widespread use of biodiesel in Canada compared to those from ultralow sulfur diesel (ULSD). The health impacts/benefits resulting from biodiesel use were determined with the Air Quality Benefits Assessment Tool, based on output from the AURAMS air quality modeling system and the MOBILE6.2C on-road vehicle emissions model. Scenarios included runs for ULSD and biodiesel blends with 5 and 20% of biodiesel by volume, and compared their use in 2006 and 2020. Although modeling and data limitations exist, the results of this study suggested that the use of biodiesel fuel blends compared to ULSD was expected to result in very minimal changes in air quality and health benefits/costs across Canada, and these were likely to diminish over time.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.582

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.204 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations18
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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