MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2148313365 · doi:10.5194/nhessd-2-6555-2014

Development of a global fire weather database for 1980–2012

2014· article· en· W2148313365 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert D. Field, Allan Spessa, Nur Adila Ab Aziz, Andrea Camia, Alan S. Cantin, Richard Carr, William J. de Groot, Andrew Dowdy, Mike Flannigan, Kasemsan Manomaiphiboon, Florian Pappenberger, Veerachai Tanpipat, X. Wang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimatologyPrecipitationMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceTropicsDatabaseGeographyComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI) System is the mostly widely used fire danger rating system in the world. We have developed a global database of daily, gridded FWI System calculations from 1980–2012. Input weather data were obtained from the NASA Modern Era Retrospective-Analysis for Research, and two different estimates of daily precipitation from rain gauges over land. FWI System Drought Code (DC) calculations from the gridded datasets were compared to calculations from individual weather station data for a representative set of stations in North, Central and South America, Europe, Russia, Southeast Asia and Australia. Agreement between gridded calculations and the station-based calculations tended to be most different over the tropics for strictly MERRA-based calculations. This dataset can be used for analyzing historical relationships between fire weather and fire activity at continental and global scales, in identifying large-scale atmosphere–ocean controls on fire weather, and calibration of FWI-based fire prediction models.

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)0.003
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.338
Threshold uncertainty score0.672

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.004

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations8
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→