MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2061025621 · doi:10.1029/2007gl032165

Wildfire smoke injection heights: Two perspectives from space

2008· article· en· W2061025621 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ralph A. Kahn, Yang Chen, David L. Nelson, F. T. Leung, Qinbin Li, David J. Diner, Jennifer A. Logan

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric aerosols and clouds
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmokeEnvironmental scienceAerosolLidarTroposphereAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyPlanetary boundary layerAtmosphere (unit)PlumeBoundary layerRemote sensingGeologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The elevation at which wildfire smoke is injected into the atmosphere has a strong influence on how the smoke is dispersed, and is a key input to aerosol transport models. Aerosol layer height is derived with great precision from space‐borne lidar, but horizontal sampling is very poor on a global basis. Aerosol height derived from space‐borne stereo imaging is limited to source plumes having discernable features. But coverage is vastly greater, and captures the cores of major fires, where buoyancy can be sufficient to lift smoke above the near‐surface boundary layer. Initial assessment of smoke injection from the Alaska‐Yukon region during summer 2004 finds at least about 10% of wildfire smoke plumes reached the free troposphere. Modeling of smoke environmental impacts can benefit from the combined strengths of the stereo and lidar observations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.265 · 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
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric aerosols and cloudsFrench-language works237,207