The Alberta smoke plume observation study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. A field project was conducted to observe and measure smoke plumes from wildland fires in Alberta. This study used handheld inclinometer measurements and photos taken at lookout towers in the province. Observations of 222 plumes were collected from 21 lookout towers over a 6-year period from 2010 to 2015. Observers reported the equilibrium and maximum plume heights based on the plumes' final levelling heights and the maximum lofting heights, respectively. Observations were tabulated at the end of each year and matched to reported fires. Fire sizes at assessment times and forest fuel types were reported by the province. Fire weather conditions were obtained from the Canadian Wildland Fire Information System (CWFIS). Assessed fire sizes were adjusted to the appropriate size at plume observation time using elliptical fire-growth projections. Though a logical method to collect plume observations in principle, many unanticipated issues were uncovered as the project developed. Instrument limitations and environmental conditions presented challenges to the investigators, whereas human error and the subjectivity of observations affected data quality. Despite these problems, the data set showed that responses to fire behaviour conditions were consistent with the physical processes leading to plume rise. The Alberta smoke plume observation study data can be found on the Canadian Wildland Fire Information System datamart (Natural Resources Canada, 2018) at http://cwfis.cfs.nrcan.gc.ca/datamart.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".