MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093773883 · doi:10.29173/topo28

The Potential for Urban Vegetation to Mitigate Ambient Air Pollution Threats to Public Health

2020· article· en· W3093773883 on OpenAlexvenueno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTopophilia · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAir pollutionPollutantVegetation (pathology)Air quality indexPollutionParticulatesEnvironmental protectionOzoneEnvironmental engineeringGeographyMeteorologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper assesses the threat that ambient air pollution poses to urban public health and the potential role of urban vegetation to mitigate those threats. Air pollution is a major global risk to health, especially in urban areas. In this paper, four major air pollutants were assessed: particulate matter, tropospheric ozone, nitrogen dioxide, and sulfur dioxide. These pollutants were found to have several adverse effects, including increasing mortality and respiratory morbidity. These pollutants come from a variety of sources, but a major contributor in urban areas is the burning of fossil fuels in automobiles. The adverse health effects of pollution are expected to grow as climate change worsens air quality. Research and case studies find that urban vegetation can filter air and remove pollutants through deposition and stomatal uptake. The effectiveness of air pollution removal is dependent upon specific variables, including leaf characteristics, type of vegetation, and seasons. Urban vegetation may worsen air quality in some cases due to slowing ventilation and producing biological volatile organic compounds. While urban vegetation has potential to mitigate ambient air pollution, conducting site specific research is needed when implementing greenspace policies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.733
Threshold uncertainty score0.914

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations3
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTopophiliaSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207