MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2480373470 · doi:10.1111/caje.12177

It's an ill wind: The effect of fine particulate air pollution on respiratory hospitalizations

2015· article· en· W2480373470 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Courtney Ward

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économique · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticulatesParticulate pollutionAir pollutionAir quality indexPollutionEnvironmental sciencePollutantEnvironmental healthEnvironmental protectionOzoneEnvironmental engineeringMeteorologyGeographyMedicineChemistryEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While a growing literature in economics has established the harmful health effects of longstanding criteria air pollutants such as ozone and carbon monoxide, fine particulate air pollution is relatively understudied. This paper provides evidence on the harmful effects of fine particulate pollution for Ontario, where municipalities enjoy particulate levels well below US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) standards and predominantly below Canada‐wide standards. Results provide strong evidence for the detrimental effect of fine particulate pollution for the respiratory health of children, with a one standard deviation change in particulate pollution, leading to a 4% increase in respiratory admissions. While these results inform the stringency of current pollution standards, they also highlight the importance of an international approach to air quality. For instance, the paper also shows that particulate levels in Ontario municipalities are strongly influenced by southerly winds from US jurisdictions, which adhere to more lenient EPA standards.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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 score0.692
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.127
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.108 · 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

Citations34
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d économiqueSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207