MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4321251586 · doi:10.31223/x5qm1h

Quantifying fire-specific smoke severity

2023· preprint· en· W4321251586 on OpenAlexaff
Jeff Wen, Patrick Baylis, Judson Boomhower, Marshall Burke

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersStanford Research Computing Center, Stanford UniversityRobert Wood Johnson FoundationCarnegie Corporation of New York
KeywordsSmokeEnvironmental scienceAir quality indexPopulationPrescribed burnScale (ratio)GeographyEnvironmental resource managementMeteorologyEnvironmental healthForestryCartographyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rapidly changing wildfire regimes across the Western US has driven more frequent and severe wildfires, resulting in wide-ranging societal threats from the wildfires themselves and the smoke that they generate. However, common measures of fire severity focus on what is burned and do not account for the societal impacts of the smoke generated from each fire. We combine satellite-derived fire scars, air parcel trajectories from individual fires, and predicted smoke PM2.5 to link source fires to resulting smoke PM2.5 experienced by populations in the contiguous United States from April 2006-2020. We develop a new metric of fire-specific severity based on the cumulative population exposed to smoke PM2.5 over the duration of a fire. This measure is only weakly correlated with common measures of wildfire severity, including burned area, structures destroyed, and suppression cost. We find that while recent California fires contributed nearly half of the country's experienced smoke severity during our study period, the most severe individual fire was the 2007 Bugaboo fire in the Southeast. We estimate that a majority of experienced smoke PM2.5 comes from sources outside the local jurisdictions where the smoke is experienced, with 87% coming from fires in other counties and 60% from fires in other states. Our approach enables broad-scale assessment of whether specific fire characteristics affect smoke toxicity or impact, informs assessment of the cost-effectiveness of how suppression resources are allocated, and helps clarify the growing transboundary nature of local air quality.

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)0.002
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 score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.202 · 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

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→