MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408426361 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-8708

Evaluation of fire emissions for HTAP3 with CAMS GFAS and IFS-COMPO

2025· preprint· en· W4408426361 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEngineering Applied Research
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceArchitectural engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Copernicus Atmosphere Monitoring Service CAMS is using ECMWF's Integrated Forecasting System IFS-COMPO with fire emissions from its Global Fire Assimilations System GFAS to monitor and forecast the effect of smoke from vegetation fires, resp. biomass burning, on atmospheric composition. The simulated atmospheric composition fields are routinely validated against observations including from satellites, aircraft and ground stations.The emissions calculation by the operational GFAS version 1.2 have recently been updated for use in the upcoming HTAP3 multi-model, multi-pollutant study of fire impacts (Whaley et al. 2024), creating the dataset GFAS4HTAP. It is based on the dry matter burnt estimates of GFASv1.2, and uses an updated spurious signal mask, ESA CCI land cover data for 2018, a global peat map (Xu et al. 2018) and emission factors from NEIVA (Shahid et al. 2024) to calculate emission fluxes for various smoke constituents for 2003-2024. An additional GFAS-based dataset has been created by calibration against GFED5beta.Global comparisons of dry matter, resp. biomass, combustion rates of the three GFAS-based inventories with GFED4s, GFED5beta, and the two variants of FINN2.5 reveal that these inventories can be roughly classified into one group of "traditional" inventories with lower fire activity, resp. emissions, and another of "more recent" inventories with higher fire activity. The pyrogenic carbon monoxide emission estimates from an inversion of satellite observations of atmospheric composition (Zheng et al. 2019) lie between these two groups in terms of global annual values. However, at a global level, they are more consistent with the "more recent" inventories during the late boreal summer peak of the global fire activity and with the "traditional" inventories during periods of lower fire activity.In order to gain more insight from independent validation, we here present simulations with IFS-COMPO for 2019 based on the three GFAS-based inventories and compare these with atmospheric observations of carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide and aerosol optical depth. We find that the best agreement of simulation and observations is achieved by different inventories for different regions, seasons and smoke constituents. However, the emissions of the GFAS4HTAP dataset appears to lead to the overall most balanced atmospheric composition simulation. This supports the group of "traditional" inventories mentioned above.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.306
Threshold uncertainty score0.634

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicEngineering Applied ResearchFrench-language works237,207