MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Regression Analysis using Machine Learning Algorithms to Predict CO<sub>2</sub> Emissions

2024· article· en· W4394911845 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lida Anna Joshy, Rakoth Kandan Sambandam, Divya Vetriveeran, J. Jenefa

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAlgorithmRegression analysisRegressionMachine learningArtificial intelligenceMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Precise measurement of fuel consumption and emissions plays an important role in evaluating the environmental effects of materials and stringent emission control methods, especially within the transportation sector. This sector represents a substantial contributor to both global greenhouse gas emissions and the release of hazardous pollutants, making accurate assessment imperative for addressing climate change. The primary objective is to construct accurate predictive models that estimate CO<inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</inf> emissions based on vehicle attributes, fostering a deeper understanding of the environmental impact of vehicular activities. Leveraging the “CO<inf xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">2</inf> Emissions_Canada.csv” dataset, the paper embarks on an extensive journey of data preprocessing, exploratory data analysis, and model training. These algorithms are meticulously fine-tuned and evaluated through metrics such as R-squared and mean absolute percentage error, rendering insights into their predictive accuracies. In essence, this paper pioneers a pathway towards environmentally responsible mobility solutions, capitalizing on the fusion of data science and environmental conservation.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.781
Threshold uncertainty score0.764

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.273 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207