MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2799634984 · doi:10.1080/10962247.2018.1463301

Air quality modeling for effective environmental management in the mining region

2018· article· en· W2799634984 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Industrial Safety
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsAir quality indexEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental qualityQuality (philosophy)Air pollutionEnvironmental engineeringEnvironmental planningChemistryGeographyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air quality in the mining sector is a serious environmental concern and associated with many health issues. Air quality management in mining regions has been facing many challenges due to lack of understanding of atmospheric factors and physical removal mechanisms. A modeling approach called the mining air dispersion model (MADM) is developed to predict air pollutants concentration in the mining region while considering the deposition effect. The model takes into account the planet’s boundary conditions and assumes that the eddy diffusivity depends on the downwind distance. The developed MADM is applied to a mining site in Canada. The model provides values for the predicted concentrations of PM10, PM2.5, TSP, NO2, and six heavy metals (As, Pb, Hg, Cd, Zn, Cr) at various receptor locations. The model shows that neutral stability conditions are dominant for the study site. The maximum mixing height is achieved (1280 m) during the evening in summer, and the minimum mixing height (380 m) is attained during the evening in winter. The dust fall (PM coarse) deposition flux is maximum during February and March with a deposition velocity of 4.67 cm/sec. The results are evaluated with the monitoring field values, revealing a good agreement for the target air pollutants with R-squared ranging from 0.72 to 0.96 for PM2.5, from 0.71 to 0.82 for PM10, and from 0.71 to 0.89 for NO2. The analyses illustrate that the presented algorithm in this model can be used to assess air quality for the mining site in a systematic way. Comparisons of MADM and CALPUFF modeling values are made for four different pollutants (PM2.5, PM10, TSP, and NO2) under three different atmospheric stability classes (stable, neutral, and unstable). Further, MADM results are statistically tested against CALPUFF for the air pollutants and model performance is found satisfactory.Implications: The mathematical model (MADM) is developed by extending the Gaussian equation particularly when examining the settling process of important pollutants for the industrial region. Physical removal effects of air pollutants with field data have been considerred for the MADM development and for an extensive field case study. The model is well validated in the field of an open pit mine to assess the regional air quality. The MADA model helps to facilitate the management of the mining industry in doing estimation of emission rate around mining activities and predicting the resulted concentration of air pollutants together in one integrated approach.

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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.434
Threshold uncertainty score0.439

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.229 · 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