Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38902290›Full record

ArticleNature communications2024

Unequal distributions of crowdsourced weather data in England and Wales.

Oscar Brousse, Charles H Simpson, Ate Poorthuis, Clare Heaviside

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Oscar BrousseUniversity College London, Institute of Environmental Design and Engineering, London, UK. o.brousse@ucl.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7364-710X
Charles H SimpsonUniversity College London, Institute of Environmental Design and Engineering, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9356-5833
Ate PoorthuisKatholieke Universiteit Leuven, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Leuven, Belgium.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-3808-7493
Clare HeavisideUniversity College London, Institute of Environmental Design and Engineering, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0263-4985

Funding

RCUK | Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) NE/R01440X/1Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust (Wellcome) 216035/Z/19/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Personal weather stations (PWS) can provide useful data on urban climates by densifying the number of weather measurements across major cities. They do so at a lower cost than official weather stations by national meteorological services. Despite the increasing use of PWS data, little attention has yet been paid to the underlying socio-economic and environmental inequalities in PWS coverage. Using social deprivation, demographic, and environmental indicators in England and Wales, we characterize existing inequalities in the current coverage of PWS. We find that there are fewer PWS in more deprived areas which also observe higher proportions of ethnic minorities, lower vegetation coverage, higher building height and building surface fraction, and lower proportions of inhabitants under 65 years old. This implies that data on urban climate may be less reliable or more uncertain in particular areas, which may limit the potential for climate adaptation and empowerment in those communities.

Identifiers

PMID38902290
PMCPMC11190285

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.