Data Verification Tools for Minimizing Management Costs of Dense Air-Quality Monitoring Networks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aiming at minimizing the costs, both of capital expenditure and maintenance, of an extensive air-quality measurement network, we present simple statistical methods that do not require extensive training data sets for automated real-time verification of the reliability of data delivered by a spatially dense hybrid network of both low-cost and reference ozone measurement instruments. Ozone is a pollutant that has a relatively smooth spatial spread over a large scale although there can be significant small-scale variations. We take advantage of these characteristics and demonstrate detection of instrument calibration drift within a few days using a rolling 72 h comparison of hourly averaged data from the test instrument with that from suitably defined proxies. We define the required characteristics of the proxy measurements by working from a definition of the network purpose and specification, in this case reliable determination of the proportion of hourly averaged ozone measurements that are above a threshold in any given day, and detection of calibration drift of greater than ±30% in slope or ±5 parts-per-billion in offset. By analyzing results of a study of an extensive deployment of low-cost instruments in the Lower Fraser Valley, we demonstrate that proxies can be established using land-use criteria and that simple statistical comparisons can identify low-cost instruments that are not stable and therefore need replacing. We propose that a minimal set of compliant reference instruments can be used to verify the reliability of data from a much more extensive network of low-cost devices.
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 | 0.022 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".