Health and Climate-Relevant Pollutant Concentrations from a Carbon-Finance Approved Cookstove Intervention in Rural India
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Efforts to introduce more efficient stoves increasingly leverage carbon-finance to scale up dissemination of interventions. We conducted a randomized intervention study to evaluate a Clean Development Mechanism approved stove replacement impact on fuelwood usage, and climate and health-relevant air pollutants. We randomly assigned 187 households to either receive the intervention or to continue using traditional stoves. Measurements of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) and absorbance were conducted in cooking areas, village center and at upwind background site. There were minor and overlapping seasonal differences (post- minus preintervention change) between control and intervention groups for median (95% CI) fuel use (-0.60 (-1.02, -0.22) vs -0.52 (-1.07, 0.00) kg day(-1)), and 24 h absorbance (35 (18, 60) vs 36 (22, 50) × 10(-6) m(-1)); for 24 h PM2.5, there was a higher (139 (61,229) vs 73(-6, 156) μg m(-3))) increase in control compared to intervention homes between the two seasons. Forty percent of the intervention homes continued using traditional stoves. For intervention homes, absorbance-to-mass ratios suggest a higher proportion of black carbon in PM2.5 emitted from intervention compared with traditional stoves. Absent of field-based evaluation, stove interventions may be pursued that fail to realize expected carbon reductions or anticipated health and climate cobenefits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".