Systematic Identification and Prioritization of Communities Impacted by Residential Woodsmoke in British Columbia, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Residential woodsmoke is an under-regulated source of fine particulate matter (PM2.5), often surpassing mobile and industrial emissions in rural communities in North America and elsewhere. In the province of British Columbia (BC), Canada, many municipalities are hesitant to adopt stricter regulations for residential wood burning without empirical evidence that smoke is affecting local air quality. The objective of this study was to develop a retrospective algorithm that uses 1-hour PM2.5 concentrations and daily temperature data to identify smoky days in order to prioritize communities by smoke impacts.Methods: Levoglucosan measurements from one of the smokiest communities were used to establish the most informative values for three algorithmic parameters: the daily standard deviation of 1-hour PM2.5 measurements; the daily mean temperature; and the daytime-to-nighttime ratio of PM2.5 concentrations. Alternate parameterizations were tested in 45 sensitivity analyses, and 23 smaller communities (populations < 80,000) were ranked by the number of smoky days identified within a 2-year period.Results: Using the most informative parameter values on the most recent two years of data for each community, the number of smoky days ranged from 5 to 277 out of 730. Heat maps visualizing seasonal and diurnal variation in PM2.5 concentrations showed clear differences between the higher- and lower-ranked communities. Some communities were sensitive to one or more of the parameters, but the overall rankings were consistent across the 45 sensitivity analyses.Conclusions: This information will allow stakeholder agencies to work with local governments on implementing appropriate intervention strategies for the most smoke-impacted communities. It was also used to identify communities for more detailed assessment using mobile monitoring.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".