Field measurements of indoor and community air quality in rural Beijing before, during, and after the <scp>COVID</scp> ‐19 lockdown
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The coronavirus (COVID-19) lockdown in China is thought to have reduced air pollution emissions due to reduced human mobility and economic activities. Few studies have assessed the impacts of COVID-19 on community and indoor air quality in environments with diverse socioeconomic and household energy use patterns. The main goal of this study was to evaluate whether indoor and community air pollution differed before, during, and after the COVID-19 lockdown in homes with different energy use patterns. Using calibrated real-time PM2.5 sensors, we measured indoor and community air quality in 147 homes from 30 villages in Beijing over 4 months including periods before, during, and after the COVID-19 lockdown. Community pollution was higher during the lockdown (61 ± 47 μg/m3) compared with before (45 ± 35 μg/m3, p < 0.001) and after (47 ± 37 μg/m3, p < 0.001) the lockdown. However, we did not observe significantly increased indoor PM2.5 during the COVID-19 lockdown. Indoor-generated PM2.5 in homes using clean energy for heating without smokers was the lowest compared with those using solid fuel with/without smokers, implying air pollutant emissions are reduced in homes using clean energy. Indoor air quality may not have been impacted by the COVID-19 lockdown in rural settings in China and appeared to be more impacted by the household energy choice and indoor smoking than the COVID-19 lockdown. As clean energy transitions occurred in rural households in northern China, our work highlights the importance of understanding multiple possible indoor sources to interpret the impacts of interventions, intended or otherwise.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".