MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405098010 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2024.111208

Expedited modeling of burn events results (EMBER): A screening-level dataset of 2023 ozone fire impacts in the US

2024· article· en· W4405098010 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Heather Simon, James Beidler, Kirk R. Baker, Barron H. Henderson, Loren Fox, Chris Misenis, Patrick Campbell, Jeff Vukovich, Norm Possiel, Alison Eyth

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosols
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Environmental Protection Agency
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceOzoneCMAQAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyGreenhouse gasAir quality indexClimatologyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Expedited Modeling of Burn Events Results (EMBER) dataset consists of 36-km grid-spacing Community Multiscale Air Quality (CMAQ) photochemical modeling for the summer of 2023. For emissions, these simulations utilized representative monthly and day-of-week anthropogenic emissions from a recent year and preliminary day-specific 2023 fire emissions derived using BlueSky pipeline. The base model run simulated ozone concentrations across the contiguous US during Apr 11-Sep 29, 2023. Two zero-out model runs simulated ozone levels that would have occurred in the US (1) in the absence of fire emissions ("Zero Fires") and (2) in the absence of only Canadian wildfire emissions ("Zero Canadian Fires"). Fire impacts on ozone were then estimated as the difference between ozone simulated in the base EMBER run compared to the ozone simulated in each of the zero out model runs. EMBER is presented as a screening level dataset due to the emissions limitations and the 36-km grid-spacing used in these simulations.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.643
Threshold uncertainty score0.981

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.296
Teacher spread0.215 · 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.

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicAtmospheric chemistry and aerosolsFrench-language works237,207