Evaluating the Impact of Neighborhood Characteristics on Differences between Residential and Mobility-Based Exposures to Outdoor Air Pollution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Epidemiological studies often assign outdoor air pollution concentrations to residential locations without accounting for mobility patterns. In this study, we examined how neighborhood characteristics may influence differences in exposure assessments between outdoor residential concentrations and mobility-based exposures. To do this, we linked residential location and mobility data to exposure surfaces for NO 2, PM 2.5, and ultrafine particles in Montreal, Canada for 5452 people in 2016. Mobility data were collected using the MTL Trajet smartphone application (mean: 16 days/subject). Generalized additive models were used to identify important neighborhood predictors of differences between residential and mobility-based exposures and included residential distances to highways, traffic counts within 500 m of the residence, neighborhood walkability, median income, and unemployment rate. Final models including these parameters provided unbiased estimates of differences between residential and mobility-based exposures with small root-mean-square error values in 10-fold cross validation samples. In general, our findings suggest that differences between residential and mobility-based exposures are not evenly distributed across cities and are greater for pollutants with higher spatial variability like NO 2 . It may be possible to use neighborhood characteristics to predict the magnitude and direction of this error to better understand its likely impact on risk estimates in epidemiological analyses.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".