A daily gridded dataset of the Fire Weather Index across Canada, with calculations based on the sun’s elevation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This article summarizes the work carried out at the ESCER (Étude et Simulation du Climat à l’Échelle Régionale, UQAM) Centre to develop the ERA5-FWI-SN dataset — a new automated, gridded dataset of the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) System components for Canada, at a spatial resolution of approximately 31 km. The ERA5-FWI-SN dataset is derived from the hourly ERA5 reanalysis using a new method, called the solar noon method, which is based on the sun's elevation above the local horizon at noon. This method aims to improve the conventional method for calculating the FWI System components, the UTC method, based on the maximum insolation defined via time zones (or specific areas covered by one Coordinated Universal Time zone, i.e. UTC zone), which can cover a wide longitudinal region where the same time prevails. The classical method relies on the principle that the average solar time over the territory covered by the same time zone is not too far from legal time (i.e., solar noon is not too far from legal noon), which can be problematic in regions that are very extensive in longitude, such as in Canada where only six time zones have been defined over more than 95° of longitudes. The solar noon method also allows for the correction of systematic biases associated with the UTC method, particularly those arising in gridded datasets near time zone boundaries or across the east–west extent of a single time zone. The dataset spans from 1950 to the present and is updated daily through an automation process that allows the calculation of the FWI components with a six-day lag, corresponding to the latest ERA5 available reanalysis data for download, resulting in a rapid (i.e., 6-days lag) monitoring of recent wildfire danger throughout Canada. Data were compared between solar noon and UTC methods and were tested against the Canadian Wildland Fire Information System (CWFIS) FWI calculated from observation station data. The dataset is available for download at https://doi.org/10.5683/SP3/4B18XZ, and derived visualization products can be accessed across the web platform http://feux.escer.uqam.ca/.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.006 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".