Evaluation of IMERG-E Precipitation Estimates for Fire Weather Applications in Alaska
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Large wildfire outbreaks in Alaska are common from June to August. The Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (CFFDRS) is used operationally by Alaskan fire managers to produce statewide fire weather outlooks and forecast guidance near active wildfires. The CFFDRS estimates of fire potential and behavior rely heavily on meteorological observations (precipitation, temperature, wind speed, and relative humidity) from the relatively small number of in situ stations across Alaska with precipitation being the most critical parameter. To improve the spatial coverage of precipitation estimates across Alaska for fire weather applications, a multisatellite precipitation algorithm was evaluated during six fire seasons (1 June–31 August 2014–19). Near-real-time daily precipitation estimates from the Integrated Multisatellite Retrievals for the Global Precipitation Mission (IMERG) algorithm were verified using 322 in situ stations across four Alaskan regions. For each region, empirical cumulative distributions of daily precipitation were obtained from station observations during each summer, and compared to corresponding distributions of interpolated values from IMERG grid points (0.1° × 0.1° grid). The cumulative distributions obtained from IMERG exhibited wet biases relative to the observed distributions for all regions, precipitation amount ranges, and summers. A bias correction approach using regional quantile mapping was developed to mitigate for the IMERG wet bias. The bias-adjusted IMERG daily precipitation estimates were then evaluated and found to produce improved gridded IMERG precipitation estimates. This approach may help to improve situational awareness of wildfire potential across Alaska and be appropriate for other high-latitude regions where there are sufficient in situ precipitation observations to help correct the IMERG precipitation estimates.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".