MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045531020 · doi:10.1139/x05-293

Economic analysis of health effects from forest fires

2006· article· en· W2045531020 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Robyn Rittmaster, Wiktor Adamowicz, B. D. Amiro, Rick Pelletier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality and Health Impacts
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersHealth Canada
KeywordsAir quality indexEnvironmental scienceParticulatesHuman healthAir pollutionForest healthGeographyNatural resource economicsEnvironmental healthEconomicsEcologyMeteorologyAgroforestryMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epidemiological studies have shown that high levels of fine particulate matter (PM) are correlated with adverse human health effects. Approximately one-third of PM emissions in Canada originate from forest fires. However, air quality concerns are not typically included in resource allocation decisions in fire management. In this paper we examine the economic magnitude of these health concerns and compare them to other costs of forest fires using the 2001 fire in Chisholm, Alberta, as a case study. We construct an empirical air dispersion model to estimate the concentration of PM arising from the fire. Benefit transfer methods were used to determine the health impacts associated with elevated PM from the fire and to value these impacts. The economic impacts appear to be substantial, second only to timber losses. The approaches used in this case study can be extended to construct a map that identifies the values at risk from health effects. The use of monetary values of these impacts helps in comparison and aggregation of the values at risk.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.932
Threshold uncertainty score0.136

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.365
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations83
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicAir Quality and Health ImpactsFrench-language works237,207