MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096471970 · doi:10.1080/10962247.2020.1844342

Gridded bias correction of modeled PM<sub>2.5</sub> for exposure assessment, and estimation of background concentrations over a coastal valley region of northwestern British Columbia, Canada

2020· article· en· W3096471970 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Chibuike Onwukwe, Peter L. Jackson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Air & Waste Management Association · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Northern British Columbia
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceEstimationAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyMeteorologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chemical transport models (CTM) can have large biases and errors when simulating pollutant concentrations. To improve the characterization of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) over complex terrain for exposure assessments, three mathematical formulae that utilized the relationship between modeled and observed quantile concentrations at a monitor location were developed. These were then applied to 1 year of CMAQ model output of PM2.5 over the Terrace–Kitimat Valley of northwestern British Columbia, Canada. The final products enhanced the representation of ambient levels at existing monitoring stations when evaluated with conventional statistical measures. Better agreement of corrected outputs with observed compliance metrics was also found. On average, the absolute errors of amended outputs were 11% and 10% for the annual mean PM2.5 and 98th percentiles of daily concentrations, respectively, compared to 45% and 61%, respectively, in the original outputs. These improvements provided greater confidence to use the amended outputs to estimate concentrations at locations without monitors. The predominance of pristine conditions in the modeling domain was exploited to derive annual background PM2.5 concentrations over the valley, which was estimated to be 2.0–2.3 μg m−3. To our knowledge, this is the first study to calculate background PM2.5 concentrations over northern BC coastlands using bias-corrected outputs from an air quality model.Implications: Bias correction of CMAQ model output was necessary for assessing regulatory compliance for ambient PM2.5. The implications are notable. First, for low to moderate spatial heterogeneity in monitoring data, the use of regression equations that relates quantile mean concentrations of model outputs to those of observational data enhances the estimation of PM2.5 at unmonitored locations. Second, by providing spatial pollutant distribution ahead of planned industrial development in Terrace–Kitimat Valley (TKV), corrected model output offers a baseline for tracking progress in airshed management. Third, correction improved pollutant exposure classification, for which the risk was predominantly low. Finally, 2.0–2.3 μg m−3 should be considered as PM2.5 concentrations that are irreducible when setting voluntary targets for ambient levels in the area.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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.

Opus teacher head0.014
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Air & Waste Management AssociationSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207