Can the data assimilation of CO from MOPITT or IASI constrain high-latitude wildfire emissions? A Case Study of the 2017 Canadian Wildfires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we examine the ability of the data assimilation of global satellite-based carbon monoxide (CO) observations to constrain high-latitude boreal wildfire emissions. We compare the optimized emissions from inversions using CO measurements from the Measurement of Pollution in the Troposphere (MOPITT) and Infrared Atmospheric Sounding Interferometer (IASI). We found that both inversions yield generally consistent posterior CO emissions globally; however, distinct differences are observed for the episodic 2017 Canadian wildfires. The 3-day global coverage of MOPITT limits its ability to accurately optimize emissions, while the daily global coverage of IASI provides a moderate improvement despite its lower surface sensitivity. Through a series of observing system simulation experiments (OSSEs), we show that the temporal coverage of IASI most strongly influenced the posterior estimates, while the differences in vertical sensitivities of MOPITT and IASI have a minor contribution.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".