Applications of artificial intelligence in the field of air pollution: A bibliometric analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Artificial intelligence (AI) has become widely used in a variety of fields, including disease prediction, environmental monitoring, and pollutant prediction. In recent years, there has also been an increase in the volume of research into the application of AI to air pollution. This study aims to explore the latest trends in the application of AI in the field of air pollution. Methods All literature on the application of AI to air pollution was searched from the Web of Science database. CiteSpace 5.8.R1 was used to analyze countries/regions, institutions, authors, keywords and references cited, and to reveal hot spots and frontiers of AI in atmospheric pollution. Results Beginning in 1994, publications on AI in air pollution have increased in number, with a surge in research since 2017. The leading country and institution were China (N = 524) and the Chinese Academy of Sciences (N = 58), followed by the United States (N = 455) and Tsinghua University (N = 33), respectively. In addition, the United States (0.24) and the England (0.27) showed a high degree of centrality. Most of the identified articles were published in journals related to environmental science; the most cited journal was Atmospheric Environment, which reached nearly 1,000 citations. There were few collaborations among authors, institutions and countries. The hot topics were machine learning, air pollution and deep learning. The majority of the researchers concentrated on air pollutant concentration prediction, particularly the combined use of AI and environmental science methods, low-cost air quality sensors, indoor air quality, and thermal comfort. Conclusion Researches in the field of AI and air pollution are expanding rapidly in recent years. The majority of scholars are from China and the United States, and the Chinese Academy of Sciences is the dominant research institution. The United States and the England contribute greatly to the development of the cooperation network. Cooperation among research institutions appears to be suboptimal, and strengthening cooperation could greatly benefit this field of research. The prediction of air pollutant concentrations, particularly PM2.5, low-cost air quality sensors, and thermal comfort are the current research hotspot.
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 | 0.011 | 0.050 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.161 | 0.226 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".