Predicting within-city spatiotemporal variations in daily median outdoor ultrafine particle number concentrations and size in Montreal and Toronto, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Epidemiological evidence suggests that long-term exposure to outdoor ultrafine particles (UFPs, <0.1 μm) may have important human health impacts. However, less is known about the acute health impacts of these pollutants as few models are available to estimate daily within-city spatiotemporal variations in outdoor UFPs. Methods: Several machine learning approaches (i.e., generalized additive models, random forest models, and extreme gradient boosting) were used to predict daily spatiotemporal variations in outdoor UFPs (number concentration and size) across Montreal and Toronto, Canada using a large database of mobile monitoring measurements. Separate models were developed for each city and all models were evaluated using a 10-fold cross-validation procedure. Results: In total, our models were based on measurements from 12,705 road segments in Montreal and 10,929 road segments in Toronto. Daily median outdoor UFP number concentrations varied substantially across both cities with 1st–99th percentiles ranging from 1389 to 181,672 in Montreal and 2472 to 118,544 in Toronto. Outdoor UFP size tended to be smaller in Montreal (mean [SD]: 34 nm [15]) than in Toronto (mean [SD]: 44 nm [25]). Extreme gradient boosting models performed best and explained the majority of spatiotemporal variations in outdoor UFP number concentrations (Montreal, R 2: 0.727; Toronto, R 2: 0.723) and UFP size (Montreal, R 2: 0.823; Toronto, R 2: 0.898) with slopes close to one and intercepts close to zero for relationships between measured and predicted values. Conclusion: These new models will be applied in future epidemiological studies examining the acute health impacts of outdoor UFPs in Canada’s two largest cities.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".