MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4234197963 · doi:10.24124/2009/bpgub630

Source apportionment of fine and coarse fraction particulate matter in Prince George and Kelowna, British Columbia.

2009· dissertation· en· W4234197963 on OpenAlexaffabout
J. Sabura Allen

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsCanadian Heritage
Fundersnot available
KeywordsParticulatesEnvironmental scienceFraction (chemistry)Environmental chemistryApportionmentRelative humidityChemistryMeteorologyGeographyChromatography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined ambient airborne fine and coarse fraction particulate matter collected from sampling locations in Prince George and Kelowna, BC, during the period October 2005 to September, 2006. The samples were analyzed for endotoxin concentration, and a chemical analysis was performed to determine elements present. Endotoxin concentration were found to be greatest at high temperatures and moderate values of relative humidity. Positive matrix factorization was performed on the Kelowna sample set. Six sources were identified for the fine fractions: wood burning, which contributed 38% to total modeled concentration, residential wood burning (27%), vehicle emissions (19%), soil (12%), agricultural dust (3.5%), and secondary particles (0.5%). Five coarse fraction sources were isolated: soil (representing 32% of modeled concentration), agricultural dust (29%), road salt (15%), residential wood burning (13%), and secondary particles (11%). --P. ii.

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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations0
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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