Evaluating the Alaska Blocking Index as an indicator of wildfire potential in Alaska's central eastern interior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Increased Arctic air temperatures and evaporative fluxes have coincided with more frequent and destructive high‐latitude wildfires. Arctic fires impact ecosystems and people, especially at the community‐level by degrading air quality, destroying agriculture, and threatening life and property. Central Eastern Interior (CEI) Alaska is one such region that has recently experienced the effects of wildfire activity related to warming air temperatures. To improve our ability to identify fire weather events and assess their potential for extreme outbreaks at actionable lead times relevant to fire weather forecasters and managers, new metrics and approaches need to be established and applied toward understanding the physical mechanisms underlying such wildland fire characteristics. Our study uses a new, regional atmospheric circulation metric, the Alaska Blocking Index (ABI), to describe midtropospheric air pressure around Alaska, which is subsequently related to CEI fire weather conditions at the Predictive Service Area (PSA) scale in climatological and extreme events frameworks. Of note, during years of high fire activity, Build‐Up Index (BUI) values tend to be anomalously high during the duff and drought phases across the CEI PSAs, though comparatively lower BUI values are still associated with high fire activity in the Tanana Zone‐South (AK03S) PSA. Likewise, extreme BUI values are strongly tied to high ABI values and well‐defined upper‐air ridging circulation patterns in the duff and drought periods. The statistical skill of mean daily ABI values in the 6–10 day period preceding extreme duff period BUI values is modest (τ2 > 14%) in the Upper Yukon Valley (AK02) PSA, a hotbed of wildland fire activity. Extremes in ABI and CEI BUI often occur in tandem, yielding regional predictability of upper‐air weather patterns and extremes and underlying surface weather conditions, by statistical and/or dynamical forecast models, imperative for local community and governmental organizations to effectively manage and allocate Alaska's fire weather resources.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".