Predicting spatial variations in annual average outdoor ultrafine particle concentrations in Montreal and Toronto, Canada: Integrating land use regression and deep learning models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Concentrations of outdoor ultrafine particles (UFP; < 0.1 µm) and black carbon (BC) can vary greatly within cities and long-term exposures to these pollutants have been associated with a variety of adverse health outcomes. This study integrated multiple approaches to develop new models to estimate within-city spatial variations in annual median (i.e. average) outdoor UFP and BC concentrations as well as mean UFP size in Canada’s two largest cities, Montreal and Toronto. We conducted year-long mobile monitoring campaigns in each city that included evenings and weekends. We developed generalized additive models trained on land use parameters and deep Convolutional Neural Network (CNN) models trained on satellite-view images. Using predictions from these models, we developed final combined models. In Toronto, the median observed UFP concentration, UFP size, and BC concentration values were 16,172 pt/cm3, 33.7 nm, and 1225 ng/m3, respectively. In Montreal, the median observed UFP concentration, UFP size, and BC concentration values were 14,702 pt/cm3, 29.7 nm, and 1060 ng/m3, respectively. For all pollutants in both cities, the proportion of spatial variation explained (i.e., R2) was slightly greater (1-2 percentage points) for the combined models than the generalized additive models and a greater (approximately 10 percentage points) than the deep CNN models. The Toronto combined model R2 values in the test set were 0.73, 0.55, and 0.61 for UFP concentrations, UFP size, and BC concentration, respectively. The Montreal combined model R2 values were 0.60, 0.49, and 0.60 for UFP concentration, UFP size, and BC concentration models respectively. For each pollutant, predictions from the combined, deep CNN, and generalized additive models were highly correlated with each other and differences between models were explored in sensitivity analyses. Predictions from these models are available to support future epidemiological research examining long-term health impacts of outdoor UFPs and BC.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".