MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3215390491 · doi:10.1002/essoar.10503538.1

Assessing the impact of Corona-virus-19 on nitrogen dioxide levels over southern Ontario, Canada

2020· article· en· W3215390491 on OpenAlexaffabout
Debora Griffin, C. A. McLinden, Jacinthe Racine, Michael D. Moran, Vitali Fioletov, Radenko Pavlovic, Henk Eskes

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
FundersNetherlands Space OfficeEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsNitrogen dioxideEnvironmental scienceAir quality indexSatelliteSampling (signal processing)MeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesTroposphereGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A lockdown was implemented in Canada mid-March 2020 to limit the spread of COVID-19. In the wake of this, declines in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) were observed from the Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI). A method is presented to quantify how much of this decrease is due to the lockdown itself as opposed to variability in meteorology and satellite sampling. The operational air quality forecast model, GEM-MACH, was used with TROPOMI to determine expected NO2 columns that represents what TROPOMI would have observed for a non-COVID scenario. Decreases in NO2 due to the lockdown were seen across southern Ontario, with an average 40% in Toronto and even larger declines in the city center. Natural and satellite sampling variability accounted for as much as 20-30%. A model run using a lockdown emissions scenario were found to be consistent with TROPOMI suggesting the prescribed declines in transportation and industry emissions are reasonable.

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 score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.230

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAir Quality and Health Impacts→French-language works237,207→