MOPSO parameters consist of population size ((N_{p})), maximum number of iterations ((text{Max}_text{Iteration})), inertia weight ((w)), repository size ((N_{r})), personal learning coefficient ((c_{1})), and global learning coefficient ((c_{2})).
We used the following parameters: inertia weight w = 1.0, damping ratio w damp = 0.99, personal learning coefficient c 1 = 1.5, global learning coefficient c 2 = 1.5, S p = 3, S g = 3.
In a study on 31 subjects (unpublished personal data), the intraclass coefficient was 0.98, the test-retest coefficient of correlation was 0.978, and the differences between the first and second sessions ranged only from −1 to 1 cm in 21 from the 31 subjects.
The calculated spectra were folded with conversion coefficients for personal dose equivalent, Hp(10)slab (A-P, ROT and ISO), effective dose, E, (A-P, ROT and ISO), ambient dose equivalent, H* 10), personal dosemeter (AP, ROT and ISO) and survey instrument response characteristics.
The signs of all the coefficients for personal characteristics in the second part of Table 2 are opposite (if significant) to the signs of those in the first part of this table because each answers the question from a different perspective.
Total personal PM2.5 exposure calibration coefficients were higher than those for personal PM2.5 of ambient origin (Table 3).
Significant between-city heterogeneity (p-value = 0.003) was detected in the calibration coefficients for personal PM2.5 of ambient origin, when the nearest monitor was used as the surrogate exposure, with estimated city-specific calibration coefficients ranging between 0.0-0.71 0.0-0.71
For these cities, we would expect the calibration coefficients for personal PM2.5 of ambient origin, which was estimated using the SO 4 2 − ratio, to be overestimated and the error to be underestimated, a factor likely contributing to the observed between-city heterogeneity.
Infiltration, however, does not appear to explain all of the observed error found in our analysis, since the average estimated calibration coefficients for personal PM2.5 of ambient origin were <0.64 (the approximated penetration efficiency using the SO 4 2 − ratio), consistent with additional contributing error sources.
In contrast, the coefficient of personal income is not significant, meaning that women's own income has little impact on their happiness.
