MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

To combat air inequality, governments and researchers must open their data

2016· article· en· W2574145276 on OpenAlex
C. A. Hasenkopf, David Cudjoe Adukpo, Michael Bräuer, L. Dewitt, Sarath Guttikunda, Alaa Ibrahim, Delgerzul Lodoisamba, N. Mutanyi, Gustavo Olivares, Pallavi Pant, Maëlle Salmon, Lodoysamba Sereeter

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueClean Air Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInequalityAir pollutionAir quality indexPollutionTransformational leadershipPopulationPublic healthData qualityDevelopment economicsPolitical scienceNatural resource economicsGeographyEconomicsEnvironmental healthMeteorologyEconomyMathematicsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Why open air quality data mattersAir pollution data measured by governments across the world are a public good that can lead to transformational advances in public health when made openly available. Such advances are needed because, according to the WHO, one out of every eight deaths in the world is due to air pollution (WHO 2014). These deaths disproportionately occur in high population density, lower income countries (WHO 2016), which, where data are available, often correspond to regions with higher long-term levels of ambient pollution (Figure 1).

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.603
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.299
GPT teacher head0.422
Teacher spread0.123 · 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