Modeling generalized statistical distributions of PM2.5 concentrations during the COVID-19 pandemic in Jakarta, Indonesia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the probabilistic or statistical behavior of air concentrations is necessary for the effective management of air pollution, such as PM2.5. Failure to consider the appropriateness of the model can lead to making inferences that are not supported by scientific evidence. The main focus of this article is to find the best statistical distribution in fitting PM2.5 concentrations in the periods of February–June 2018 and February–June 2019 (the periods without COVID-19) and in the period of February–June 2020 (the period with COVID-19) in Jakarta, Indonesia. This article considers making an assessment of the performance of both generalized distributions (e.g., generalized gamma, generalized extreme value, and generalized log-logistic [GLL]) and classical distributions (such as lognormal [LN], gamma, Weibull, log-logistic, and Gumbel) in modeling daily concentrations of PM2.5 in the period of February–June 2020, or the period during which the COVID-19 pandemic is present, in Jakarta. For comparison purposes, this study also analyzed PM2.5 concentrations in the periods of February–June 2018 and February–June 2019. The comparative evaluation of the models of each period of data uses graphical analyses and goodness-of-fit statistics. The results of applications indicate that the generalized distributions fit the data better than do the classical distributions. Particularly, compared with the classical distributions, including the LN model, the GLL distribution is the most appropriate model in fitting PM2.5 concentrations in the periods without and during the period with COVID-19 in Jakarta, Indonesia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".