Air Quality Monitoring in Coal-Centric Cities: A Hybrid Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the increasing time sensitivity of climate change, many cities worldwide still heavily rely on coal. The extraction, processing, transport, and usage of coal lead to deteriorated air quality, resulting in complex environmental and public health problems for the local communities. Mapping different pollution sources in coal-centric cities is not trivial due to the hyperlocal nature of air pollution and the often low-density network of air quality monitors. This study explores the air quality issues surrounding coal-centric cities using a combination of qualitative and quantitative data from reference-grade air quality monitors, low-cost sensors (LCSs) deployed on citizens’ vehicles, and community engagement activities. It explores how LCSs can be used to characterize air quality at a high spatio-temporal resolution and how this information can be used to decode people’s perceptions of air quality issues and elicit local knowledge. We evaluated our approach in Sparwood (Canada), and Oskemen (Kazakhstan) which are very different cities, but are both heavily dependent on coal. LCSs have been proven an efficient tool to identify pollution hotspots that traditional reference monitors miss, while workshop-based activities making use of data maps and coding tools have successfully elicited information about pollution sources from non-experts, helping collaborative sense-making and informing new LCS deployment strategies. Understanding air quality in coal-centric cities as a complex socio-technical phenomenon can enable the coal industry, city officials, and residents to engage in addressing air quality issues.
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 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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".