A joint Bayesian space–time model to integrate spatially misaligned air pollution data in R‐INLA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In air pollution studies, dispersion models provide estimates of concentration at grid level covering the entire spatial domain and are then calibrated against measurements from monitoring stations. However, these different data sources are misaligned in space and time. If misalignment is not considered, it can bias the predictions. We aim at demonstrating how the combination of multiple data sources, such as dispersion model outputs, ground observations, and covariates, leads to more accurate predictions of air pollution at grid level. We consider nitrogen dioxide (NO 2 ) concentration in Greater London and surroundings for the years 2007–2011 and combine two different dispersion models. Different sets of spatial and temporal effects are included in order to obtain the best predictive capability. Our proposed model is framed in between calibration and Bayesian melding techniques for data fusion. Unlike other examples, we jointly model the response (concentration level at monitoring stations) and the dispersion model outputs on different scales, accounting for the different sources of uncertainty. Our spatiotemporal model allows us to reconstruct the latent fields of each model component, and to predict daily pollution concentrations. We compare the predictive capability of our proposed model with other established methods to account for misalignment (e.g., bilinear interpolation), showing that in our case study the joint model is a better alternative.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".