MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2135713310 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2002.1027124

MOPITT detection of carbon monoxide emitted from biomass burning: a case study

2003· article· en· W2135713310 on OpenAlexaff
Jane Liu, J. R. Drummond

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Center for Atmospheric Research
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceAtmosphere (unit)TroposphereAtmospheric sciencesBiomass burningRadiometerBiomass (ecology)Carbon monoxideRemote sensingSatelliteAdvanced very-high-resolution radiometerMeteorologyGeologyAerosolGeographyChemistryOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The EOS Measurements Of Pollution In The Troposphere (MOPITT) is the first free-flying instrument for global measurement of carbon monoxide (CO) in the atmosphere from space. Because biomass burning is one of the major sources of CO to the atmosphere, the capacity of MOPITT to detect CO released from biomass burning is important and is the subject of this investigation. A study area with a series of fire events in the year 2000 in the northwest United States is selected. Fire data, detected with Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) from the satellite, were acquired and processed to spatially and temporally match the CO data. It is found that the increase of CO in the atmosphere is closely related to burning area and density in the study area. It appears that MOPITT can detect the CO increase due to biomass burning in a forested area when the fire size is over 40 km/sup 2/, i.e. 8% of a MOPITT pixel.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.192 · 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

Citations1
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics→French-language works237,207→