MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399766067 · doi:10.32920/26052541.v1

Investigating the Influence of Environmental Features on Air Pollution and Environmental Noise in Three Cities of Ontario, Canada

2024· preprint· en· W4399766067 on OpenAlexaffabout
Md Golam Saroar

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicNoise Effects and Management
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNoise pollutionEnvironmental noiseAir pollutionNoise (video)Environmental planningPollutionEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental pollutionGeographyEnvironmental protectionEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceNoise reductionOceanographyGeologySound (geography)Ecology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This thesis examines the impacts of environmental features on air and noise pollution covariance in three different cities of Southern Ontario. More specifically, the objectives of the study were to (1) Evaluate the correlation and spatial relationship between nitrogen dioxide 2NO ), and environmental noise in Mississauga, Hamilton and London; (2) Analyze the influence of environmental features on the covariance of NO and NO2se levels in the study areas. A combination of descriptive and inferential bivariate, and multivariate statistical techniques were performed to develop local and global models of noise and air pollution covariance. This study found a substantial correlation between the NO 2nd environmental noise in Mississauga and Hamilton; however, the correlation in London was very low. According to the final Land Use Regression (LUR) model, variables like traffic volume, road length, and industrial land-use increase the NO a2d environmental noise in different cities, whereas Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) helps to reduce the NO a2d environmental noise. This approach could be a good option for LUR modeling of environmental pollution in cities where extensive spatial monitoring is unfeasible, and more specifically, the predicted results of such a study may be applied to further health studies in the cities with the same land-use patterns.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.163

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.253 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNoise Effects and ManagementFrench-language works237,207