MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1508495092 · doi:10.1029/2002gl016820

Transport of forest fire smoke above the tropopause by supercell convection

2003· article· en· W1508495092 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Michael Fromm, R. Servranckx

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceGoddard Space Flight CenterNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsTroposphereTropopauseStratosphereAtmospheric sciencesTaigaEnvironmental scienceBorealClimatologySmokeConvectionGeologyMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A recent letter [ Fromm et al., 2000 ] postulated a link between boreal forest fire smoke and observed stratospheric aerosol enhancements in 1998. Therein a case was made that severe convection played a role in the cross‐tropopause transport. A similar occurrence of stratospheric aerosol enhancements in the boreal summer of 2001 was the stimulus to investigate the causal mechanism more deeply. Herein, we show a detailed case illustrating the unambiguous creation of a widespread, dense smoke cloud in the upper troposphere and lower stratosphere (UT/LS) by a Canadian forest fire and explosive convection in May 2001. This event is the apparent common point for several downstream stratospheric mystery cloud observations. Implications of this finding and those pertaining to the boreal summer of 1998 are that convection and boreal biomass burning have an under‐resolved and under‐appreciated impact on the upper troposphere, lower stratosphere, radiative transfer, and atmospheric chemistry.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.033
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 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

Citations275
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207