MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2546885527 · doi:10.22237/jmasm/1478004000

The br2-weighting Method for Estimating the Effects of Air Pollution on Population Health

2016· article· en· W2546885527 on OpenAlexaff
Jelena Krstić, Nikolas Krstic, Mauricio Zambrano‐Bigiarini

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Modern Applied Statistical Methods · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaFraser Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeightingStatisticsLinear regressionMeasure (data warehouse)PopulationAir pollutionPollutionMathematicsEconometricsReliability (semiconductor)Regression analysisWork (physics)Environmental healthComputer scienceData miningEngineeringMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uncertainties, limitations and biases may impede the correct application of concentration-response linear functions to estimate the effects of air pollution exposure on population health. The reliability of a prediction depends largely on the strength of the linear correlation between the studied variables. This work proposes the joint use of the coefficient of determination, r2, with the regression slope, b, as an improved measure of the strength of the linear relation between air pollution and its effects on population health. The proposed br2‑weighting method offers more reliable inferences about the potential effects of air pollution on population health, and can be applied universally to other fields of research.

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)0.032
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.076
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.167

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0320.076
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.438
Teacher spread0.389 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Modern Applied Statistical MethodsSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207