Development of a General Calibration Model and Long-Term Performance Evaluation of Low-Cost Sensors for Air Pollutant Gas Monitoring
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Assessing the intra-city spatial distribution and temporal variability of air quality can be facilitated by a dense network of monitoring stations. However, the cost of implementing such a network can be prohibitive if traditional high-quality, expensive monitoring systems are used. To this end, the Real-time Affordable Multi-Pollutant (RAMP) monitor has been developed, which can measure up to five gases including the criteria pollutant gases carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), and ozone (O3), along with temperature and relative humidity. This study compares various algorithms to calibrate the RAMP measurements including linear and quadratic regression, clustering, neural networks, Gaussian processes, and random forests. Using data collected by more than sixty RAMP monitors over periods ranging up to eighteen months, it was found that quadratic regression models or a hybrid of random forest and linear models tend to be the most effective calibration models overall. In specific cases, other types of models can have comparable or even superior performance. Furthermore, generalized calibration models may be used instead of individual models with only a small reduction in overall performance. For long-term deployments, it is recommended that new models be developed each year, due to the noticeable change in performance when models for one year were used for processing data collected in the subsequent year. This makes annually-developed generalized calibration models even more useful since only a subset of deployed monitors are needed to build these models. These results will help guide future efforts in the calibration and use of low-cost sensor systems worldwide.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it