Development of methods for citizen scientist mapping of residential woodsmoke in small communities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Residential wood burning is a major source of fine particulate matter (PM2.5) during winter and a leading contributor to air pollution. Exposure to woodsmoke PM2.5 is associated with many health effects, so it is important to characterize the magnitude and spatial variability in exposures. However, high infrastructure and maintenance costs of regulatory monitoring stations limit their spatial resolution and make monitoring infeasible for many small communities where woodsmoke may be prevalent. Mobile monitoring was conducted with a nephelometer and multi-wavelength aethalometer, capable of identifying woodsmoke PM2.5, to capture spatially resolved data. This Combined Aethalometer and Nephelometer for Assessment of Woodsmoke (CANAW) method was evaluated in three pairs of communities in British Columbia, Canada. Measurements were also taken at fixed-site monitoring stations. Light scattering measured by a nephelometer (Bsp) was compared with gravimetric filter-based and beta-attenuation measures of PM2.5. The difference in absorbance of 370 nm and 880 nm wavelengths as measured by an aethalometer (delta C), was compared with the chemical woodsmoke tracer levoglucosan. Fixed site measurements of Bsp and delta C were comparable with established methods of monitoring PM2.5 and woodsmoke, respectively. Correlations in each tested relationship across all locations were high (r ≥ 0.93 in all cases). Mobile monitoring captured high spatial variation in woodsmoke PM2.5 and maps of average concentrations during monitoring were created to identify woodsmoke hotspots. Following the successful implementation of the mobile CANAW method, training materials were created and tested with lay volunteers along with an online mapping application. Volunteers were able to effectively operate the equipment, collect valuable data on woodsmoke concentrations, and map spatial patterns across their communities using the application. The CANAW method is a valuable option for advancing cost-effective data collection for residential woodsmoke in otherwise unmonitored communities, and to add spatial context to existing monitoring networks.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".