MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W929760484 · doi:10.1016/j.sste.2015.06.002

Accounting for spatial effects in land use regression for urban air pollution modeling

2015· article· en· W929760484 on OpenAlexaff
Stefania Bertazzon, Markey Johnson, Kristin M. Eccles, Gilaad G. Kaplan

Bibliographic record

VenueSpatial and Spatio-temporal Epidemiology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaHealth CanadaUniversity of Calgary
FundersHealth Effects Institute
KeywordsSpatial analysisWind speedEnvironmental scienceAutoregressive modelSpatial variabilityRegression analysisAutocorrelationAir pollutionGeographically Weighted RegressionRegressionSpatial ecologyLinear regressionMeteorologyStatisticsEconometricsMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to accurately assess air pollution risks, health studies require spatially resolved pollution concentrations. Land-use regression (LUR) models estimate ambient concentrations at a fine spatial scale. However, spatial effects such as spatial non-stationarity and spatial autocorrelation can reduce the accuracy of LUR estimates by increasing regression errors and uncertainty; and statistical methods for resolving these effects--e.g., spatially autoregressive (SAR) and geographically weighted regression (GWR) models--may be difficult to apply simultaneously. We used an alternate approach to address spatial non-stationarity and spatial autocorrelation in LUR models for nitrogen dioxide. Traditional models were re-specified to include a variable capturing wind speed and direction, and re-fit as GWR models. Mean R(2) values for the resulting GWR-wind models (summer: 0.86, winter: 0.73) showed a 10-20% improvement over traditional LUR models. GWR-wind models effectively addressed both spatial effects and produced meaningful predictive models. These results suggest a useful method for improving spatially explicit models.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score0.100

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.120
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations77
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSpatial and Spatio-temporal EpidemiologySame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207