Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. To accurately study the characteristics of an air pollution emitter, it is necessary to isolate the contribution of that emitter to total measured pollution concentrations. A variety of published methods exist to complete this task, like placing measurements upwind the emitter, employing a distant background measurement station, or algorithmic methods that extract a background from the time-series of measured concentrations (e.g., wavelet decomposition). In this study, we measured nitrogen oxides (NOx), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), and fine particulate matter (PM2.5) at four sites spanning Toronto, Ontario, Canada. We first characterized the spatial variability of background concentrations across the city, and then tested the accuracy of seven different algorithmic methods of estimating true measured upwind-of-emitter backgrounds near Toronto’s Highway 401 by using the data collected at a downwind site. These methods included time-series and regression methods, including machine learning (XGBoost). We observed background concentrations had notable spatial variability, except for PM2.5. When predicting backgrounds upwind the highway, we found a distant measurement station provided an accurate background only during some times of day and was least accurate during rush hours. When testing algorithmic predictions of upwind-of-highway backgrounds, we found that regression models outperformed time-series methods, with best predictions having R2 exceeding 0.75 for all four pollutants. Despite the better performance of regression models, time-series methods still provided reasonable estimates; we also found that emitter-specific covariates (e.g. traffic counts, onsite dispersion modelling) did not play an important role in regressions, suggesting backgrounds can be well-characterized by time of day, meteorology, and distant measurement stations. Based on our results, we provide ranked recommendations for choosing background estimation methods. We suggest future air pollution research characterizing individual emitters include careful consideration of how background concentrations are estimated.
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 | 0.004 | 0.043 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.034 | 0.030 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.144 | 0.120 |
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".