MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399425561 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adl1252

Mortality attributable to PM <sub>2.5</sub> from wildland fires in California from 2008 to 2018

2024· article· en· W4399425561 on OpenAlexaff
Rachel Connolly, Miriam E. Marlier, Diane A. Garcia‐Gonzales, Joseph L. Wilkins, Jason Su, Claire Bekker, Jihoon Jung, Eimy Bonilla, Richard T. Burnett, Yifang Zhu, Michael Jerrett

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
FundersCalifornia Air Resources Board
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceParticulatesEnvironmental healthEquatingAir quality indexAir pollutionToxicologyGeographyMeteorologyMedicineEcologyBiologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In California, wildfire risk and severity have grown substantially in the last several decades. Research has characterized extensive adverse health impacts from exposure to wildfire-attributable fine particulate matter (PM 2.5 ), but few studies have quantified long-term outcomes, and none have used a wildfire-specific chronic dose-response mortality coefficient. Here, we quantified the mortality burden for PM 2.5 exposure from California fires from 2008 to 2018 using Community Multiscale Air Quality modeling system wildland fire PM 2.5 estimates. We used a concentration-response function for PM 2.5 , applying ZIP code–level mortality data and an estimated wildfire-specific dose-response coefficient accounting for the likely toxicity of wildfire smoke. We estimate a total of 52,480 to 55,710 premature deaths are attributable to wildland fire PM 2.5 over the 11-year period with respect to two exposure scenarios, equating to an economic impact of $432 to $456 billion. These findings extend evidence on climate-related health impacts, suggesting that wildfires account for a greater mortality and economic burden than indicated by earlier studies.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.007

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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations61
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207