MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400341768 · doi:10.1080/17538947.2024.2372321

Examining the joint effect of air pollution and green spaces on stress levels in South Korea: using machine learning techniques

2024· article· en· W4400341768 on OpenAlexaff
Khadija Ashraf, Yoo Min Park, Matthew H. E. M. Browning, Jue Wang, Ruoyu Wang, Kangjae Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Digital Earth · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicUrban Green Space and Health
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersKorea Institute of Energy Technology Evaluation and PlanningMinistry of Trade, Industry and Energy
KeywordsPandemicAir pollutionPollutionGeographyAir quality indexStress (linguistics)Random forestCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Joint (building)Environmental planningPsychologyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceEngineeringMachine learningMeteorologyCivil engineeringMedicineEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the joint effect of air pollution and different types of green spaces (e.g. mixed forests) on stress levels in South Korea. Two periods were examined: before the COVID-19 pandemic (2017–2019) and during the COVID-19 pandemic (2020–2022). We used 16 total parameters for our Random Forest model. Stress was the dependent variable, and 15 other variables were independent parameters. Our focused independent parameters were PM10 and green spaces (forest types). Our findings show that mixed forests reduce stress, particularly when pollution levels are low. In addition, is associated with increased stress levels, and this relationship became stronger during the COVID-19. These findings indicate that protecting mixed forests and improving air quality may improve people’s mental health. This study provides insights into how cities can be made healthier and happier places to live, particularly during challenging periods such as a pandemic.

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)0.000
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 score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.211

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Digital EarthSame topicUrban Green Space and HealthFrench-language works237,207