The 2017 North Bay and Southern California Fires: A Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two extreme wind-driven wildfire events impacted northern and southern California in late 2017 leading to 46 fatalities and thousands of structures lost. This study describes the meteorological and climatological factors that drove and enabled these wildfire events and quantifies the rarity of such conditions over the observational record. Both extreme wildfire events featured fire-weather metrics that were unprecedented in the observational record in addition to a sequence of climatic conditions that preconditioned fuels. The North Bay fires that affected portions of northern California in early October occurred coincident with strong downslope winds. The vast majority of the fires’ devastating effects and acres burned occurred overnight and within the first twelve hours of ignition. By contrast, the southern California fires of December were characterized by the longest Santa Ana wind event on record and included the largest wildfire in California’s history. Both fire events occurred following an exceptionally wet winter that was preceded by the drought of record in California. Fuels were further preconditioned as the warmest summer and autumn on record occurred in northern and southern California, respectively. Accelerated curing of fuels coupled with the delayed onset of autumn precipitation allowed for critically low dead fuel moisture leading up to the foehn wind events. Fire weather conditions were well forecasted several days prior to the fire. However, the rarity of fire-weather conditions that occurred in the wildland urban interface, along with other societal factors were key contributors to wildfire impacts to communities.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".