MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410439208 · doi:10.5194/amt-18-2201-2025

Comparison of methods for resolving the contributions of local emissions to measured concentrations

2025· article· en· W4410439208 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Taylor D. Edwards, Yee Ka Wong, Cheol–Heon Jeong, Jonathan M. Wang, Yushan Su, Greg J. Evans

Bibliographic record

VenueAtmospheric measurement techniques · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and ParksUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesGreenhouse gasPhysicsGeologyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 surpassed the performance of time-series methods, with best predictions having R2 exceeding 0.8 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, on-site 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 includes 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 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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.706
Threshold uncertainty score0.352

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAtmospheric measurement techniquesSame topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207