MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6959124210 · doi:10.1021/acs.est.4c08675.s001

Unveilingthe Impact of Wildfires on NanoparticleCharacteristics and Exposure Disparities through Mobile and Fixed-SiteMonitoring in Toronto, Canada

2025· article· en· W6959124210 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSentiment Analysis and Opinion Mining
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmigrationAerosolDowntownParticle (ecology)Climate change

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the impacts of wildfires on nanoparticle characteristics and exposure disparities in Toronto, integrating data from a large-scale mobile monitoring campaign and fixed-site measurements during the unprecedented 2023 wildfire season. Our results reveal changes in particle characteristics during wildfire days, with particle number concentrations decreasing by 60% and particle diameter increasing by 30% compared to nonwildfire days. Moreover, the median lung deposited surface area (LDSA) levels rose by 31% during wildfire events. We employed gradient boosting models to estimate near-road LDSA levels on both wildfire and nonwildfire days. The LDSA ratio (wildfire/nonwildfire) exceeded 2.0 in certain areas along highways and in downtown Toronto. Furthermore, our findings show that marginalized communities faced greater LDSA increases than less marginalized ones. Under wildfire conditions, the LDSA ratio difference between the most and least marginalized groups was 16% for recent immigrants and visible minorities and 7% for seniors and children, both statistically significant. This study delivers critical insights into the spatiotemporal variations of nanoparticle characteristics during wildfire and nonwildfire periods, demonstrating the substantial health risks posed by increased LDSA levels and the inequitable distribution of these risks among Toronto’s diverse population.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.073
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicSentiment Analysis and Opinion MiningFrench-language works237,207