MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137078396 · doi:10.1029/1999gl011200

Observations of boreal forest fire smoke in the stratosphere by POAM III, SAGE II, and lidar in 1998

2000· article· en· W2137078396 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael Fromm, Jerome Alfred, K. W. Hoppel, John Hornstein, R. M. Bevilacqua, E. P. Shettle, R. Servranckx, Zhanqing Li, B. J. Stocks

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric Ozone and Climate
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAerosolEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesTropopauseStratosphereLidarTaigaBorealSmokeExtinction (optical mineralogy)ClimatologyVolcanoMeteorologyRemote sensingGeologyGeographyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A substantial increase in stratospheric aerosol was recorded between May and October 1998 between 55° and 70°N. This phenomenon was recorded in the absence of reported volcanic eruptions with stratospheric impact potential. The POAM III and SAGE II instruments made numerous measurements of layers of enhanced aerosol extinction substantially higher than typical values 3 to 5 km above the tropopause. A comparison of these observations with lidar profiles, TOMS aerosol index data, and forest fire statistics reveals a strong link between stratospheric aerosol and forest fire smoke. Our analysis strongly suggests that smoke from boreal forest fires was lofted across the tropopause in substantial amounts in several episodes occurring in Canada and eastern Russia. Observations reveal a broad zonal increase in stratospheric aerosol that persisted for at least three months.

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)0.000
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 score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations251
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicAtmospheric Ozone and ClimateFrench-language works237,207