High-Resolution Satellite-Derived PM<sub>2.5</sub> from Optimal Estimation and Geographically Weighted Regression over North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We used a geographically weighted regression (GWR) statistical model to represent bias of fine particulate matter concentrations (PM2.5) derived from a 1 km optimal estimate (OE) aerosol optical depth (AOD) satellite retrieval that used AOD-to-PM2.5 relationships from a chemical transport model (CTM) for 2004-2008 over North America. This hybrid approach combined the geophysical understanding and global applicability intrinsic to the CTM relationships with the knowledge provided by observational constraints. Adjusting the OE PM2.5 estimates according to the GWR-predicted bias yielded significant improvement compared with unadjusted long-term mean values (R(2) = 0.82 versus R(2) = 0.62), even when a large fraction (70%) of sites were withheld for cross-validation (R(2) = 0.78) and developed seasonal skill (R(2) = 0.62-0.89). The effect of individual GWR predictors on OE PM2.5 estimates additionally provided insight into the sources of uncertainty for global satellite-derived PM2.5 estimates. These predictor-driven effects imply that local variability in surface elevation and urban emissions are important sources of uncertainty in geophysical calculations of the AOD-to-PM2.5 relationship used in satellite-derived PM2.5 estimates over North America, and potentially worldwide.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".