MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2118944089 · doi:10.1071/wf14074

Toward an integrated system for fire, smoke and air quality simulations

2015· article· en· W2118944089 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Wildland Fire · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmokeCanyonAir quality indexPlumeStreet canyonAir pollutionChemical transport model

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, WRF-Sfire is coupled with WRF-Chem to construct WRFSC, an integrated forecast system for wildfire behaviour and smoke prediction. WRF-Sfire directly predicts wildfire spread, plume and plume-top heights, providing comprehensive meteorology and fire emissions to chemical transport model WRF-Chem, eliminating the need for an external plume-rise model. Evaluation of WRFSC was based on comparisons between available observations of fire perimeter and fire intensity, smoke spread, PM2.5 (particulate matter less than 2.5 μm in diameter), NO and ozone concentrations, and plume-top heights with the results of two WRFSC simulations, a 48-h simulation of the 2007 Witch–Guejito Santa Ana fires and a 96-h WRF-Sfire simulation with passive tracers of the 2012 Barker Canyon fire. The study found overall good agreement between forecast and observed local- and long-range fire spread and smoke transport for the Witch–Guejito fire. However, ozone, PM2.5 and NO concentrations were generally underestimated and peaks mistimed in the simulations. This study found overall good agreement between simulated and observed plume-top heights, with slight underestimation by the simulations. Two promising results were the agreement between plume-top heights for the Barker Canyon fire and faster than real-time execution, making WRFSC a possible operational tool.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.565
Threshold uncertainty score0.356

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.312
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 teacher head, 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

Citations56
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Wildland FireSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207