MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904475727 · doi:10.3390/fire1030050

Extensible Database of Validated Biomass Smoke Events for Health Research

2018· article· en· W2904475727 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Hanigan, Geoffrey Morgan, Grant J. Williamson, Farhad Salimi, Sarah B. Henderson, Murray Turner, David M. J. S. Bowman, Fay H. Johnston

Bibliographic record

VenueFire · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnergy and Environment Impacts
Canadian institutionsBC Centre for Disease Control
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDatabaseSmokeEnvironmental scienceBiomass (ecology)Vegetation (pathology)PollutionComputer scienceProtocol (science)MeteorologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The extensible Biomass Smoke Validated Events Database is an ongoing, community driven, collection of air pollution events which are known to be caused by vegetation fires such as bushfires (also known as wildfire and wildland fires), or prescribed fuel reduction burns, and wood heaters. This is useful for researchers of health impacts who need to distinguish smoke from vegetation versus other sources. The overarching aim is to study statistical associations between biomass smoke pollution and health. Extreme pollution events may also be caused by dust storms or fossil fuel smog events and so validation is necessary to ensure the events being studied are from biomass. This database can be extended by contribution from other researchers outside the original team. There are several available protocols for adding validated smoke events to the database, to ensure standardization across datasets. Air pollution data can be included, and free software was created for identification of extreme values. Protocols are described for reference material needed as supporting evidence for event days. The utility of this database has previously been demonstrated in analyses of hospitalization and mortality. The database was created using open source software that works across operating systems. The prospect for future extensions to the database is enhanced by the description in this paper, and the availability of these data on the open access Github repository enables easy addition to the database with new data by the research community.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.126

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0040.003
Open science0.0030.003
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0380.024

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFireSame topicEnergy and Environment ImpactsFrench-language works237,207