MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2782073032 · doi:10.5194/acp-2017-1126

Associativity Analysis of SO <sub>2</sub> and NO <sub>2</sub> for Alberta Monitoring Data Using KZ Filtering and Hierarchical Clustering

2018· article· en· W2782073032 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Joana Soares, Paul A. Makar, Yayne-abeba Aklilu, Ayodeji Akingunola

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsAlberta Environment and Protected AreasEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaAlberta Environment and Parks
KeywordsEuclidean distanceHierarchical clusteringCluster analysisRedundancy (engineering)Data miningComputer scienceSimilarity (geometry)Metric (unit)Environmental scienceAlgorithmStatisticsMathematicsEngineeringArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Abstract. Associativity analysis is a powerful tool to deal with large-scale datasets by clustering the data on the basis of (dis)similarity, and can be used to assess the efficacy and design of air-quality monitoring networks. We describe here our use of Kolmogorov-Zurbenko filtering and hierarchical clustering of NO2 and SO2 passive and continuous monitoring data, to analyse and optimize air quality networks for these species in the province of Alberta, Canada. The methodology applied in this study assesses dissimilarity between monitoring station time series based on two metrics: 1-R, R being the Pearson correlation coefficient, and the Euclidean distance. We have combined the analytic power of hierarchical clustering with the spatial information provided by deterministic air quality model results, using the gridded time series of model output as potential station locations, as a proxy for assessing monitoring network design and for network optimization. We find that both metrics should be used to evaluate the similarity between monitoring time series, since this allows a cross-comparison in terms of temporal variation and magnitude of concentrations to assess station potential redundancy. Here, the relative level of potential redundancy of an existing monitoring location was ranked according to each dissimilarity metric, with sites forming clusters at low values of both 1-R and Euclidean distance being the most redundant. We demonstrate clustering results depend on the air contaminant analyzed, reflecting the difference in the respective emission sources of SO2 and NO2 in the region under study. Our work shows that much of the signal identifying the sources of NO2 and SO2 emissions resides in shorter time scales (hourly to daily) due to short-term variation of concentrations. However, the methodology nevertheless identifies stations mainly influenced by seasonality, if larger time scales (weekly to monthly) are considered. We have found that data consisting of longer-term averages may lose the short-term variation needed to identify local sources, implying that long-term averaged observations are not suitable for source identification purposes. In addition to averaging time, round-off levels in data reports, and the accuracy of instrumentation were also shown to have a negative influence on the clustering results. We have performed the first dissimilarity analysis based on gridded air-quality model output, and have shown that the methodology is capable of generating maps of sub-regions within which a single station will represent the entire sub-region, to a given level of dissimilarity. Maps of this nature may be combined with other georeferenced data (e.g. road networks, power availability) to assist in monitoring network design. We have also shown that our methodology is capable of identifying different sampling methodologies, as well as identifying outliers (stations’ time series which are markedly different from all others in a given dataset).

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.647
Threshold uncertainty score0.702

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols→French-language works237,207→