MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406256340 · doi:10.1088/1748-9326/ada8c2

Large increase in extreme fire weather synchronicity over Europe

2025· article· en· W4406256340 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Miguel Ángel Torres‐Vázquez, Francesca Di Giuseppe, Alberto Moreno Torreira, Andrina Gincheva, Sónia Jerez, Marco Rosselli Del Turco

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmental Research Letters · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSynchronicityEnvironmental scienceClimatologyMeteorologyGeographyGeologyPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Synchronous extreme fire weather can significantly increase the probability of fire ignition and spread, posing compounding threats to fire management efforts and potentially overwhelming firefighting capabilities. While substantial evidence indicates that weather conditions conducive to wildfires will likely become more frequent with higher levels of global warming, changes in extreme fire weather synchronicity remain understudied. Here, we quantify the synchronicity of extreme fire weather in Europe by analysing historical data of the Canadian fire weather index (FWI) from 1981 to 2022 and projecting FWI future scenarios with temperature increases from 1 °C to 6 °C and precipitation changes from −40% to +60%. Our results highlight Central Europe (CEU) as a significant hotspot, with synchronicity increases of up to 389%, while the Mediterranean region could see increases up to 66%. These findings emphasize the growing need for enhanced cross-border coordination and proactive fire management strategies to address the rising likelihood of concurrent extreme fire weather conditions in a warming climate.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.084

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.226 · 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

Citations16
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironmental Research LettersSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207