MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392131809 · doi:10.5539/gjhs.v16n3p27

Impact of Burning Incense/Joss Paper on Outdoor Air Pollution: An Interrupted Time Series Analysis Using Hanoi Air Quality Data in 2020

2024· article· en· W4392131809 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Phạm Thị Lan, Lan Vu, Le Tu Hoang, Lê Thị Hương, Bui Thi Tu Quyen

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Journal of Health Science · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIncenseAir monitoringAir quality indexAir pollutionInterrupted time seriesEnvironmental scienceAeronauticsMeteorologyHistoryEngineeringEnvironmental engineeringMedicineGeographyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burning joss paper and incense during religious and cultural ceremonies is common in Vietnam. This study aims to measure the impact of burning joss paper and incense during Vu Lai festival (full moon of July) in Vietnam. Data of Hanoi air quality in year 2020 was used. Interrupted time series analysis was employed to examine the changes in pattern of various air quality indicators before and after the festival period. The results revealed that burning joss paper and incense led to an immediate increase of 15.94 units in the air quality index on the first day, which gradually rose to 47.4 units by the end of the full moon period. Regarding NO2, PM10, and PM25, there was no significant immediate change at the start of the intervention period (August 29th, 2020). However, significant increases in levels and an upward trend were observed during the intervention time, followed by substantial decreases after the intervention period ended (September 3rd, 2020). This analysis did not find a significant impact on CO, SO2, and O3 due to burning joss paper and incense. These findings provide valuable insights for policymakers and stakeholders involved in managing and enhancing air quality in regions where such practices are prevalent.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.201
Threshold uncertainty score0.756

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.351 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGlobal Journal of Health ScienceSame topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207