MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411234585 · doi:10.53328/inr25mos004

The May-June 2025 Central Canada Fires: National Challenges of a Warming Climate and Cascading International Impacts

2025· report· en· W4411234585 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Seyd Teymoor Seydi, John T. Abatzoglou, Amir AghaKouchak, Kaveh Madani, Mir A. Matin, Mojtaba Sadegh

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUnited Nations University Institute for Water, Environment, and Health
FundersGlobal Affairs CanadaJoint Fire Science ProgramNational Science Foundation
KeywordsClimatologyGlobal warmingEnvironmental scienceClimate changeGeographyMeteorologyOceanographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The explosive 2025 wildfire season in Central Canada reflects an increasing trend of large-scale burning driven by climate change. This analysis quantifies the direct and transboundary impacts of the fires from mid-May to early June 2025. By early June, the fires had burned over 2.7 million hectares and forced over 33,000 evacuations. Using satellite and population data, we assessed the human consequences, revealing a significant international smoke event that exposed over 117 million people in the United States to heavy smoke on a single day. These fires, exacerbated by anomalously warm and dry conditions, underscore the urgent need for a paradigm shift toward heightened community preparedness, enhanced societal resilience, proactive prevention, and robust international cooperation to manage the cascading cross-border health and safety impacts of wildfires.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.027
Threshold uncertainty score0.197

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0040.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→