MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Ultrafine and Fine Particulate Matter Levels over Resurfacing Operations at Skating Arenas

2018· article· en· W2990025184 on OpenAlexaff
Sunil C Varughese, Kelly Sabaliauskas, Seema B. Sharma, C. J. Burnett, Tracy L Kirkham

Bibliographic record

VenueISEE Conference Abstracts · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSmart Materials for Construction
Canadian institutionsToronto Public HealthUniversity of TorontoPublic Health Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUltrafine particleParticulatesEnvironmental sciencePopulationParticle numberMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesEngineeringGeologyGeographyChemistryChemical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Ice arenas are a unique public indoor space where there is extensive use of combustion engines combined with an exercising population. This pilot study seeks to identify ultrafine particle (UFP) levels and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) in indoor ice arenas across resurfacing operations. Ice making is a time-consuming and expensive process. In order to preserve the ice and ensure a smooth surface, arena operators resurface ice based on usage. Ice resurfacing involves driving a resurfacing machine over the surface of the ice as it simultaneously scrapes off a thin layer of ice and fills scratches with water, resulting in a smooth and even ice surface. Pollutants can be trapped near the ice from stagnant air flow due to a combination of boards and glass surrounding the ice and a thermal inversion which keeps colder air near the ice surface.Methods: UFP and PM2.5 measurements were continually collected using a TSI P-Trak and a TSI Dusttrak DRX. Samples were run indoors before, during and for approximately 20 minutes after one resurfacing event to capture changes in particle levels throughout the event and outdoor background measurements were taken. Sampling was conducted on two separate days in 12 arenas, once in the morning and once in the afternoon. Arenas were selected that differed in their ventilation characteristics and resurfacing equipment (7-propane, 3-natural gas, 1-gasoline, 1 electric).Results: Mean resurfacing time was 9.1 minutes (range 6-16) and was performed hourly during high arena usage. Peaks in UFP were typically observed 10 minutes post resurfacing with a mean increase in peak UFP from pre- to post- resurfacing across arenas of 65% (range 13-400%). However, PM2.5 levels were not elevated following resurfacing operations.Conclusion: The poster will provide results on changes in UFP levels by fuel type of resurfacer.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 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 venueISEE Conference AbstractsSame topicSmart Materials for ConstructionFrench-language works237,207