MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2796182676 · doi:10.11159/awspt18.112

An Assessment of Ambient Air Quality in Gyor, Hungary

2018· article· en· W2796182676 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
A. Szabó Nagy, Zs. Csanádi

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental Engineering · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHungarian Social, Economic and Educational Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEmberi Eroforrások Minisztériuma
KeywordsQuality (philosophy)Air quality indexComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper presents an assessment of air quality of the city Gyr, located 120 km west to the capital of Hungary. Two urban air monitoring stations are operated by the local Environmental Protection Laboratory in the city. The concentration data of major air pollutants (CO, NOx, SO2, C6H6, O3, PM10, PM2.5), PM10-bound heavy metals (Pb, Cd, As and Ni) and some polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) including benzo(a)pyrene (BaP), benzo(a)anthracene, sum of three benzofluoranthene (b, k and j) isomers, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene and dibenzo(a,h)anthracene are available for the assessment based on the latest published monitoring data of the Hungarian Air Quality Monitoring Network. The levels of pollutants were compared with the Hungarian and EU limit or target values defined for health protection and the WHO air quality guidelines (AQGs) or estimated reference levels (RLs). Moreover, the air quality index values for the pollutants were calculated. The results indicated that the main pollutants were BaP, PM10 and PM2.5 in the Gyr atmosphere. The annual mean concentration of PM10 and PM2.5 aerosols reached the WHO AQGs (20 and 10 g/m 3 ), while that of the BaP it was about 5.5 times higher than the WHO RL value of 0.12 ng/m 3 . However, a good or excellent air quality was identified for all examined air pollutants based on the concentration data evaluated by the Hungarian and EU limit or target values.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.398

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.282 · 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.

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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the World Congress on Civil, Structural, and Environmental EngineeringSame topicHungarian Social, Economic and Educational StudiesFrench-language works237,207