MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4242117002 · doi:10.1002/essoar.10503396.1

Disentangling the impact of the COVID-19 lockdowns on urban NO2 from natural variability

2020· preprint· en· W4242117002 on OpenAlexaffabout
Daniel L. Goldberg, Zifeng Lü

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicCOVID-19 impact on air quality
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Air quality indexAtmospheric sciencesNitrogen dioxideSatelliteMeteorologyMiamiSpring (device)GeographyClimatology2019-20 coronavirus outbreakPhysicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Satellite data show substantial drops in nitrogen dioxide (NO2) during COVID-19 physical distancing. To attribute NO2 changes to NOx emissions changes over short timescales, one must account for meteorological effects. We find that meteorological patterns were especially favorable for low NO2 in much of the U.S. in spring 2020, complicating comparisons with spring 2019. Meteorological variations between years can cause column NO2 differences of ~15% over monthly timescales. After accounting for sun angle and meteorological considerations, we calculate that NO2 drops ranged between 9.2 – 43.4% among twenty cities in North America, with a median of 21.6%. Of the studied cities, largest NO2 drops (>30%) were in San Jose, Los Angeles, and Toronto, and smallest drops (<12%) were in Miami, Minneapolis, and Dallas. These normalized NO2 changes can be used to highlight locations with greater activity changes and better understand the sources contributing to adverse air quality in each city.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.175

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.302 · 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

Citations40
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCOVID-19 impact on air qualityFrench-language works237,207