Identification and influence of spatio-temporal outliers in urban air quality measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forty eight potential outliers in air pollution measurements taken simultaneously in Detroit, Michigan, USA and Windsor, Ontario, Canada in 2008 and 2009 were identified using four independent methods: box plots, variogram clouds, difference maps, and the Local Moran's I statistic. These methods were subsequently used in combination to reduce and select a final set of 13 outliers for nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ), volatile organic compounds (VOCs), total benzene, toluene, ethyl benzene, and xylene (BTEX), and particulate matter in two size fractions (PM 2.5 and PM 10 ). The selected outliers were excluded from the measurement datasets and used to revise air pollution models. In addition, a set of temporally-scaled air pollution models was generated using time series measurements from community air quality monitors, with and without the selected outliers. The influence of outlier exclusion on associations with asthma exacerbation rates aggregated at a postal zone scale in both cities was evaluated. Results demonstrate that the inclusion or exclusion of outliers influences the strength of observed associations between intraurban air quality and asthma exacerbation in both cities. The box plot, variogram cloud, and difference map methods largely determined the final list of outliers, due to the high degree of conformity among their results. The Moran's I approach was not useful for outlier identification in the datasets studied. Removing outliers changed the spatial distribution of modeled concentration values and derivative exposure estimates averaged over postal zones. Overall, associations between air pollution and acute asthma exacerbation rates were weaker with outliers removed, but improved with the addition of temporal information. Decreases in statistically significant associations between air pollution and asthma resulted, in part, from smaller pollutant concentration ranges used for linear regression. Nevertheless, the practice of identifying outliers through congruence among multiple methods strengthens confidence in the analysis of outlier presence and influence in environmental datasets.
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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".