MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2907219914 · doi:10.1051/epjconf/201817605044

Wildfire smoke transport and impact on air quality observed by a mullti-wavelength elastic-raman lidar and ceilometer in New York city

2018· article· en· W2907219914 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Yonghua Wu, Wilson Peña, Barry Gross, Fred Moshary

Bibliographic record

VenueEPJ Web of Conferences · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCore Research for Evolutional Science and TechnologyNational Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
KeywordsCeilometerPlumeHYSPLITSmokeEnvironmental scienceAir quality indexSatelliteMeteorologyLidarPlanetary boundary layerAtmospheric sciencesBoundary layerAerosolRemote sensingGeographyGeologyTurbulencePhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The intense wildfires from the western Canada in May 2016 injected large amount of smoke into the atmosphere. This paper presents integrated observation of the event by a lidar, ceilometer, and satellite together with models and an assessment of smoke plume impacts on local air quality in New York City (NYC) area. A dense aloft plume on May 20 and a boundary layer plume on May 25 are analyzed. The smoke mixing into planetary-boundary-layer (PBL) and strong diurnal variation of PBL-top are shown. For the 2ndcase, the ground PM2.5 measurements show a significant increase in both the urban and upwind non-urban areas of NYC. The smoke sources and transport paths are further verified by the satellite observations and HYSPLIT model data.

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 score0.483
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.227 · 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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEPJ Web of ConferencesSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207