Exploring the triple burden of social disadvantage, mobility poverty, and exposure to traffic-related air pollution
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the relationships between ultrafine particle (UFP) exposure, socioeconomic status (SES), and sustainable transportation accessibility in Toronto, Canada is crucial for promoting public health, addressing environmental justice, and ensuring transportation equity. We conducted a large-scale mobile measurement campaign and employed a gradient boost model to generate exposure surfaces using land use, built environment, and meteorological conditions. The Ontario Marginalization Index was used to quantify various indicators of social disadvantage for Toronto's neighborhoods. Our findings reveal that people in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas experience elevated UFP exposures. We highlight significant disparities in accessing sustainable transportation, particularly in areas with higher ethnic concentrations. When factoring in daily mobility, UFP exposure disparities in disadvantaged populations are further exacerbated. Furthermore, individuals who do not generate emissions themselves are consistently exposed to higher UFPs, with active transportation users experiencing the highest UFP exposures both at home and at activity locations. Finally, we proposed a novel index, the Community Prioritization Index (CPI), incorporating three indicators, including air quality, social disadvantage, and sustainable transportation. This index identifies neighborhoods experiencing a triple burden, often situated near major infrastructure hubs with high diesel truck activity and lacking greenspace, marking them as high-priority areas for policy action and targeted interventions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".