MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An investigation of time series and case-crossover analyses of air pollution and asthma hospital admission data for children in Toronto (Ontario).

2002· article· en· W7406795 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Abby Leigh. Livingston

Bibliographic record

VenueAustralasian Radiology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAsthmaAir pollutionSeries (stratigraphy)Time seriesMedicineHospital admissionStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Air pollution has been a popular topic of study over the years. It causes great harm to our environment (global warming) not to mention our health (cancer, heart disease, respiratory disease, etc.). Many people have investigated the damaging relationship between air pollution and mortality and morbidity, using different methods along the way. The different methods yield results that are not directly comparable with one another because the methods use different strategies. Air pollution data and hospital admissions data for asthma patients aged six to twelve in the Toronto area from January 1, 1981 to December 31, 1993 were gathered and analyzed under a variety of time series and case-crossover designs. The lack of consistency in the results among the techniques led us to perform a simulation in order to choose the most accurate method to analyze this Toronto data. While the time series approach produced fairly accurate results, the bidirectional case-crossover using the exact method of approximation was the overall best technique of analysis.Dept. of Mathematics and Statistics. Paper copy at Leddy Library: Theses & Major Papers - Basement, West Bldg. / Call Number: Thesis2002 .L589. Source: Masters Abstracts International, Volume: 41-04, page: 1098. Adviser: Karen Fung. Thesis (M.Sc.)--University of Windsor (Canada), 2002.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

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 communication0.0000.001
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.327
Teacher spread0.285 · 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
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAustralasian RadiologySame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207