Analysis of Approaches to Determining the Atmosphere Pollution Level of Settlements
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
The aim of the work is to analyze the methodology for calculating indices are used both in the Russian Federation and in a number of foreign countries, that allow us to draw a conclusion about the level of atmospheric pollution. The article considers approaches to the calculation of such indices as IZA, KIZA (Russia), AQI (USA, Australia), DAQI (Great Britain), CAQI, YACAQI (European Union), AQHI (Canada, Hong Kong), PSI (Singapore). The main calculation formulas of the indices, the parameters on the basis of which they are calculated and how the results can be interpreted are described. The conclusion about the applicability of these methods on the territory of Russia is made. The calculation part was made on the basis of data on the concentrations of pollutants obtained at automatic atmospheric air monitoring stations in Irkutsk for 2019. In addition, the absolute and relative frequency of occurrence of various index values was calculated. It was found that despite the apparent similarity of the results, the analysis should be carried out at the level of sub-indices or pollution indices for each individual substance. In addition, the calculation of the absolute and relative frequencies of the occurrence of indices corresponding to different levels of pollution showed that averaging the results hides the occurrence of dangerous levels of pollution that may be critical for sensitive population groups (people with chronic diseases, children, the elderly).
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 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 it