An Investigation into Which Methods Best Explain Children’s Exposure to Traffic-Related Air Pollution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There have been several methods employed to quantify individual-level exposure to ambient traffic-related air pollutants (TRAP). These include an individual's residential proximity to roads, measurement of individual pollutants as surrogates or markers, as well as dispersion and land use regression (LUR) models. Hopanes are organic compounds still commonly found on ambient particulate matter and are specific markers of combustion engine primary emissions, but they have not been previously used in personal exposure studies. In this paper, children's personal exposures to TRAP were evaluated using hopanes determined from weekly integrated filters collected as part of a personal exposure study in Windsor, Canada. These hopane measurements were used to evaluate how well other commonly used proxies of exposure to TRAP performed. Several of the LUR exposure estimates for a range of air pollutants were associated with the children's summer personal hopane exposures (r = 0.41-0.74). However, all personal hopane exposures in summer were more strongly associated with the length of major roadways within 500 m of their homes. In contrast, metrics of major roadways and LUR estimates were poorly correlated with any winter personal hopanes. Our findings suggest that available TRAP exposure indicators have the potential for exposure misclassification in winter vs. summer and more so for LUR than for metrics of major road density. As such, limitations are evident when using traditional proxy methods for assigning traffic exposures and these may be especially important when attempting to assign exposures for children's key growth and developmental windows. If long-term chronic exposures are being estimated, our data suggest that measures of major road lengths in proximity to homes are a more-specific approach for assigning personal TRAP exposures.
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 | 0.012 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".