An empirical model to estimate daily forest fire smoke exposure over a large geographic area using air quality, meteorological, and remote sensing data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Exposure to forest fire smoke (FFS) is associated with a range of adverse health effects. The British Columbia Asthma Medication Surveillance (BCAMS) product was developed to detect potential impacts from FFS in British Columbia (BC), Canada. However, it has been a challenge to estimate FFS exposure with sufficient spatial coverage for the provincial population. We constructed an empirical model to estimate FFS-related fine particulate matter (PM2.5) for all populated areas of BC using data from the most extreme FFS days in 2003 through 2012. The input data included PM2.5 measurements on the previous day, remotely sensed aerosols, remotely sensed fires, hand-drawn tracings of smoke plumes from satellite images, fire danger ratings, and the atmospheric venting index. The final model explained 71% of the variance in PM2.5 observations. Model performance was tested in days with high, moderate, and low levels of FFS, resulting in correlations from 0.57 to 0.83. We also developed a method to assign the model estimates to geographical local health areas for use in BCAMS. The simplicity of the model allows easy application in time-constrained public health surveillance, and its sufficient spatial coverage suggests utility as an exposure assessment tool for epidemiologic studies on FFS exposure.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".