Analysis of the influence of exogenous factors on indoor air quality in residential buildings
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indoor air pollution presents a significant global health risk, yet the influence of outdoor air pollution and meteorological factors on indoor air quality is not well understood. This study investigates these impacts in 88 naturally ventilated households across urban, suburban, and industrial areas, with no indoor smoking or cooking. Air quality measurements were continuously recorded for 24 h a day over six consecutive days during the wet season. The findings reveal that the outdoor PM 2.5 levels consistently exceeded indoor levels, with weekday concentrations higher than on weekends. Specifically, urban PM 2.5 levels averaged 34.8 μg/m³ outdoors and 31 μg/m³ indoors on weekdays, compared to 33.1 μg/m³ outdoors and 31.5 μg/m³ indoors on weekends. Indoor CO 2 levels were notably higher, peaking at 525.7 ppm in urban areas on weekdays and 576.9 ppm on weekends, driven by increased occupancy and poor ventilation, particularly in suburban areas (880.4 ppm on weekdays and 807.5 ppm on weekends). The average indoor/outdoor (I/O) ratio for PM 2.5 was 0.94, indicating that indoor concentrations are about 94% of outdoor levels, signifying significant infiltration of outdoor pollution. In contrast, the I/O ratio for CO 2 was 1.47, suggesting indoor levels were 47% higher due to limited ventilation and indoor sources. This study concludes that outdoor air pollution and meteorological factors significantly affect indoor air quality in Kigali, Rwanda, highlighting the need for effective management of both outdoor pollution sources and indoor conditions.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it