Bibliographic record
Abstract
Low-cost sensor networks offer the potential to reduce monitoring costs while providing high-resolution spatiotemporal data on pollutant levels. However, these sensors come with limitations, and many aspects of their field performance remain underexplored. During October to December 2023, this study deployed two identical low-cost sensor systems near an urban standard monitoring station to record PM2.5 and PM10 concentrations, along with environmental temperature and humidity. Our evaluation of the monitoring performance of these sensors revealed a broad data distribution with a systematic overestimation; this overestimation was more pronounced in PM10 readings. The sensors showed good consistency (R<sup>2</sup> > 0.9, NRMSE<5 %), and normalization residuals were tracked to assess stability, which, despite occasional environmental influences, remained generally stable. A lateral comparison of four calibration models (MLR, SVR, RF, XGBoost) demonstrated superior performance of RF and XGBoost over others, particularly with RF showing enhanced effectiveness on the test set. SHAP analysis identified sensor readings as the most critical variable, underscoring their pivotal role in predictive modeling. Relative humidity consistently proved more significant than dew point and temperature, with higher RH levels typically having a positive impact on model outputs. The study indicates that, with appropriate calibration, sensors can supplement the sparse networks of regulatory-grade instruments, enabling dense neighborhood-scale monitoring and a better understanding of temporal air quality trends.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".