Ultra-high-resolution mapping of ambient fine particulate matter to estimate human exposure in Beijing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract With the decreasing regional-transported levels, the health risk assessment derived from fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ) has become insufficient to reflect the contribution of local source heterogeneity to the exposure differences. Here, we combined the both ultra-high-resolution PM 2.5 concentration with population distribution to provide the personal daily PM 2.5 internal dose considering the indoor/outdoor exposure difference. A 30-m PM 2.5 assimilating method was developed fusing multiple auxiliary predictors, achieving higher accuracy (R 2 = 0.78–0.82) than the chemical transport model outputs without any post-simulation data-oriented enhancement (R 2 = 0.31–0.64). Weekly difference was identified from hourly mobile signaling data in 30-m resolution population distribution. The population-weighted ambient PM 2.5 concentrations range among districts but fail to reflect exposure differences. Derived from the indoor/outdoor ratio, the average indoor PM 2.5 concentration was 26.5 μg/m 3 . The internal dose based on the assimilated indoor/outdoor PM 2.5 concentration shows high exposure diversity among sub-groups, and the attributed mortality increased by 24.0% than the coarser unassimilated model.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
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".