MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415263043 · doi:10.57041/3ep3n393

Five-Year PM2.5 Trends in Lahore: A Monthly and Annual Overview (2019–2023)

2025· article· W4415263043 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuePakistan Journal of Science · 2025
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPollutionAir pollutionAir quality indexTrend analysisWind speedWet seasonDispersion (optics)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study presents a comprehensive analysis of monthly and yearly average PM2.5 concentrations in Lahore, Pakistan, from 2019 to 2023, utilizing data sourced from IQAir. The research aims to understand the influence of meteorological parameters on air quality trends and to identify significant patterns and shifts in pollution levels over the five-year period. Results reveal a distinct seasonal cycle, with peak pollution occurring during the colder, stagnant winter months (October-February) characterized by lower temperatures, reduced wind speeds, and frequent temperature inversions. Conversely, the lowest PM2.5 concentrations are observed during the warmer, rainy summer months (May-August) due to enhanced atmospheric dispersion and wet deposition. Year-on-year comparisons indicate a persistent air quality challenge, with a concerning escalation in peak pollution levels observed in November 2023, recording the highest monthly average in the dataset. The analysis also highlights the temporary air quality improvements during the COVID-19-induced economic slowdown in 2020, followed by a rebound and increase in pollution levels as economic activity resumed. This study underscores the critical need for more aggressive and sustained emission control measures in Punjab to mitigate the adverse impacts of air pollution on public health and the environment.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.789
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.003
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.302 · 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.

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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePakistan Journal of ScienceSame topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207