Exposure and Inequality of PM2.5 Pollution to Chinese Population: A Case Study of 31 Provincial Capital Cities from 2000 to 2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fine particulate matter (PM2.5) exposure has been linked to numerous adverse health effects, with some disadvantaged subgroups bearing a disproportionate exposure burden. Few studies have been conducted to estimate the exposure and inequality of different subgroups due to a lack of adequate characterization of disparities in exposure to air pollutants in urban areas, and a mechanistic understanding of the causes of these exposure inequalities. Based on a long-term series of PM2.5 concentrations, this study analyzed the spatial and temporal characteristics of PM2.5 in 31 provincial capital cities of China from 2000 to 2016 using the coefficient of variation and trend analyses. A health risk assessment of human exposure to PM2.5 from 2000 to 2016 was then undertaken. A cumulative population-weighted average concentration method was applied to investigate exposures and inequality for education level, job category, age, gender and income population subgroups. The relationships between socioeconomic factors and PM2.5 exposure concentrations were quantified using the geographically and temporally weighted regression model (GTWR). Results indicate that the PM2.5 concentrations in most of the capital cities in the study experienced an increasing trend at a rate of 0.98 μg m−3 per year from 2000 to 2016. The proportion of the population exposed to high PM2.5 (above 35 μg m−3) increased annually, mainly due to the increase of population migrating into north, east, south and central China. The higher educated, older, higher income and urban secondary industry share (SIS) subgroups suffered from the most significant environmental inequality, respectively. The per capita GDP, population size, and the share of the secondary industry played an essential role in unequal exposure to PM2.5.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".