Regional Estimates of Chemical Composition of Fine Particulate Matter Using a Combined Geoscience-Statistical Method with Information from Satellites, Models, and Monitors: V4.NA.02.MAPLE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We estimate ground-level fine particulate matter (PM2.5) total and compositional mass concentrations over North America by combining Aerosol Optical Depth (AOD) retrievals from the NASA MODIS, MISR, and SeaWIFS instruments with the GEOS-Chem chemical transport model, and subsequently calibrated to regional ground-based observations of both total and compositional mass using Geographically Weighted Regression (GWR) as detailed in the provided reference for V4.NA.02. V4.NA.02.MAPLE further modified the V4.NA.02 GWR method with additional developments as part of the MAPLE (Mortality–Air Pollution Associations in Low-Exposure Environments) project. This adjustment was of particular value over low concentrations. The GWR method of individual components remains unchanged from V4.NA.02, but are provided are percentages to ensure mass closure and recommended to be applied to the V4.NA.02.MAPLE total PM2.5. Annual datasets are provided in NetCDF [.nc]. Gridded files use the WGS84 projection. Compositional estimates are provided for sulfate (SO4), nitrate (NO3), ammonium (NH4), organic matter (OM), black carbon (BC), mineral dust (DUST), and sea-salt (SS). Percentages are denoted with a ‘p’ after component identifiers within filenames. A slight change in file name has been included for 2017, corresponding to minor internal changes compared to earlier years. Overall, however, the dataset is consistent throughout its entire time period and can be appropriately used for trend analysis. Reference: van Donkelaar, A., R. V. Martin, et al. (2019). Regional Estimates of Chemical Composition of Fine Particulate Matter using a Combined Geoscience-Statistical Method with Information from Satellites, Models, and Monitors. Environmental Science & Technology, 2019, doi:10.1021/acs.est.8b06392.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".