Robustness of Land-Use Regression Models Developed from Mobile Air Pollutant Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Land-use regression (LUR) models are useful for resolving fine scale spatial variations in average air pollutant concentrations across urban areas. With the rise of mobile air pollution campaigns, characterized by short-term monitoring and large spatial extents, it is important to investigate the effects of sampling protocols on the resulting LUR. In this study a mobile lab was used to repeatedly visit a large number of locations (∼1800), defined by road segments, to derive average concentrations across the city of Montreal, Canada. We hypothesize that the robustness of the LUR from these data depends upon how many independent, random times each location is visited ( N vis ) and the number of locations ( N loc ) used in model development and that these parameters can be optimized. By performing multiple LURs on random sets of locations, we assessed the robustness of the LUR through consistency in adjusted R 2 (i.e., coefficient of variation, CV) and in regression coefficients among different models. As N loc increased, R 2 adj became less variable; for N loc = 100 vs N loc = 300 the CV in R 2 adj for ultrafine particles decreased from 0.088 to 0.029 and from 0.115 to 0.076 for NO 2. The CV in the R 2 adj also decreased as N vis increased from 6 to 16; from 0.090 to 0.014 for UFP. As N loc and N vis increase, the variability in the coefficient sizes across the different model realizations were also seen to decrease.
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 | 0.019 | 0.045 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
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".