MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4362014378 · doi:10.47611/jsrhs.v11i3.3272

Predicting the Danger of Particulate Matter Pollution from Wildfires Using Classification Models

2022· article· en· W4362014378 on OpenAlexaff
William Lai

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Student Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsBishop's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceParticulatesMeteorologyAir pollutionPhysical geographyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to a mix of climate change and California’s mega-drought, California’s wildfire seasons have overall gotten progressively longer, more destructive, and more expensive. In 2020 alone, around 9,900 wildfires burned about 4.3 million acres, costing the state over $12 billion. (Kerlin, 2022) Larger and more numerous wildfires pollute billions of harmful particles into the atmosphere, including PM2.5. This study aims to use features of a wildfire and other factors to predict whether a wildfire pollutes enough PM2.5 particles to be detrimental to human health. The 8 features used in the model are the acres burned, the length in days of the fire, available green space within a 15-mile radius of the fire, the highest population density within a 15-mile radius of the fire, electricity usage, median income, temperature, and precipitation. A Gradient Boosting Classifier (GBC) was applied to the dataset to predict whether a wildfire’s emissions necessitated an evacuation. The GBC results achieved a high accuracy of 0.931 as well as a great Area Under the Curve (AUC) of 0.911. By far the most important feature in the GBC is Length, with a feature importance score of 0.109 +/- 0.009.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.131
GPT teacher head0.375
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Student Research→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→