Sensitivity of Source Apportionment of Ambient PM2.5-Bound Elements to Input Concentration Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study investigated the sensitivity of the positive matrix factorization (PMF) model using concentrations of PM2.5-bound elements in Windsor, Ontario, Canada. Five scenarios were devised to assess impacts of input data on source identification, source contributions, and model performance. The study found that the model outcomes and performance were not sensitive to data below method detection limits (MDLs) being replaced with ½ MDLs, nor whether brown carbons (BrCs) data were excluded. By analyzing two episodic events individually, unique factors of fireworks and mineral dust were identified for each of the two episodes. Moreover, PMF model performance was improved greatly for event markers of the episodes and elements with less variability in concentration when compared with the base case scenario. Excluding the two episodes from the entire dataset had little impact on factor identification and source contributions but improved the model performance for three out of twelve elements unique to the two episodes. Overall, the PMF model outcomes and performance were sensitive to percentages of concentrations below MDLs and element concentrations with large variability due to high concentrations observed in episodes. Our findings are useful for dealing with data below MDLs and episodic events in conducting future PMF source apportionment of PM2.5-bound elements.
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 | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".