MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2726622977 · doi:10.47339/ephj.2015.113

Comparing carbon dioxide levels within urban transport microenvironments during rush hour and non-rush traffic

2015· article· en· W2726622977 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ming Hei Leung, Environmental Health BCIT School of Health Sciences, Bobby Sidhu

Bibliographic record

VenueBCIT Environmental Public Health Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRush hourCarbon dioxideVentilation (architecture)Air quality indexIndoor air qualityEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental engineeringTransport engineeringEngineeringMeteorologyGeographyEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 Introduction: Commuters spend countless hours within tightly confined spaces with limited ventilation that may be filled with many contaminants. By analyzing if there is a significant difference between levels of carbon dioxide between rush and non-rush hour conditions, it can be determined if some commuters are subjected to poorer levels of air quality during certain times of the day. Objectives: The primary objective of this study is to understand whether there are significant ventilation deficiencies during rush compared to non-rush hour times in urban transport microenvironments. Methods: Analysis of urban transport microenvironments was done using the TSI brand QTrak Indoor Air Quality (IAQ) Monitor to gather data on carbon dioxide at 1-minute intervals on the 99 B-line express bus that runs between Broadway and Commercial Skytrain Station and the Broadway and Cambie Street Skytrain Station. Results: A one tailed T-test was done on the NCSS 9 statistical software to compare if rush hour urban microenvironments had significantly higher concentrations of carbon dioxide than when compared to non-rush hour. Statistical analysis determined that since the P-value was well above the alpha level of 0.05 (i.e. P<0.05), it gives reason to accept the null hypothesis, which states that rush hour concentrations were not higher than non-rush hour. Conclusion: Statistical analysis determined that the overall concentrations of carbon dioxide during rush hour were not significantly higher than non-rush hour times. This result may have been attributed to conditions and factors during data collection that could not be controlled by the researcher. Due to the length of the route, exposure times were found to be within time-weighted averages as set out by the American Conference of Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH), though it was still not within the recommended limit of 1000 ppm as set out by the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration and Air-Conditioning (ASHRAE).

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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.084
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations0
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBCIT Environmental Public Health JournalSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207