MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936109446 · doi:10.7451/cbe.2018.60.6.9

A review of particulate matter emissions and impacts on human health: A focus on Canadian agricultural and rural emission sources

2018· review· en· W2936109446 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Jennifer Spencer, Bill Van Heyst

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Biosystems Engineering · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
FundersEuropean CommissionOntario Ministry of Agriculture, Food and Rural AffairsCanadian Poultry Research Council
KeywordsParticulatesHuman healthAgricultureEnvironmental healthRural areaEnvironmental scienceNatural resource economicsGeographyBusinessMedicineEcologyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Particulate matter (PM) has been documented in an increasing number of research studies as having a known or suspected negative impact on human health. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 3.1 million deaths were caused by ambient fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in 2010. While many Canadian studies focus on health impacts from PM2.5, there is a gap with respect to rural sourced PM2.5 and health impacts in these areas. This paper reviews the impact PM2.5 has on Canadians’ health, investigates where PM2.5 data is being gathered, and outlines the sources of PM2.5 reported. Secondary inorganic aerosols that are formed in and around animal production facilities due to the higher prevalence of ammonia gas is of particular interest. The conclusion drawn is that the reporting and gathering of rural sourced PM2.5 data is lacking, leading to a gap in the data used to determine the impacts on Canadian human health.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.900
Threshold uncertainty score0.198

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.012
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Biosystems EngineeringSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207