MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128056009 · doi:10.1029/2003gl017503

Identification of CO plumes from MOPITT data: Application to the August 2000 Idaho‐Montana forest fires

2003· article· en· W2128056009 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐François Lamarque, D. P. Edwards, L. K. Emmons, J. C. Gille, Olga Wilhelmi, Christoph Gerbig, D. Prevedel, M. N. Deeter, J. X. Warner, Daniel Ziskin, B. Khattatov, Gene Francis, V. A. Yudin, Shu‐peng Ho, Debbie Mao, J. Chen, J. R. Drummond

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPlumeEnvironmental scienceTropospherePeriod (music)ClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesPhysical geographyMeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study focuses on the identification of carbon monoxide (CO) released during the forest fires that took place primarily in Montana and Idaho during the summer of 2000. We focus our analysis on the most intense period of the fires during the second half of August. During that period, the MOPITT instrument onboard the EOS‐Terra platform collected extensive measurements of CO. A simulation of the dispersal of the CO from the fires, constrained by the AVHRR observations of fire location and extent, clearly identifies the affected regions. The model results are compared with the CO observations from the COBRA experiment flight on August 19. Using these various data, we are able to identify the transport of the CO plume originating from the fires. In particular, it is shown that the CO travels eastward from the fires, reaching as far as the East coast and the Gulf of Mexico in a few days. Although the distribution of CO over the U.S. is clearly a combination of a variety of sources it is found that wildfires are a strong component of the summer tropospheric CO.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.754
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.285
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.

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

Citations46
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207