Health Monitoring Considering Air Quality Index Prediction Using Neuro Fuzzy Inference Model: A Case Study of Lahore, Pakistan
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For many years, improving air quality has been great attention of the whole world. It has been recognized that air pollution as a hypothetically hazardous type of environmental pollution and polluted air directly affects the human health. In Asian countries, it has converged less attention of ever growing most alarming and hazardous issue of air pollution. This paper presents a case study of Lahore city of Pakistan for the prediction of Air Quality Index (AQI) using hybrid approach of Neuro Fuzzy (NF) inference system. The ambient air data of Lahore was taken from the Environmental Protection | department (EPD) working under government of the Punjab. For results evaluation, data was recorded at different station in the period from April 2007 to May 2015. The fuzzy rules have been generated according to the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (PAK-EPA) standard of AQI. The NF Inference Model took the air pollutants such as Particulate Matter (PM2.5), Ozone (O3), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulphur Dioxide (SO2) and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) as inputs and predicted the air quality index as good, moderate, or unhealthy air. The results showed that NF based AQI prediction model classifies the AQI proficiently, robustly, and accurately as compared to conventional method.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".