MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7145264724

森林火災と風の流れ

2014· article· ja· W7145264724 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Hiroshi Hayasaka

Bibliographic record

VenueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB) · 2014
Typearticle
Languageja
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorealTaigaBeaufort seaBeaufort scaleRidgeHotspot (geology)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2004, many large-scale fires occurred in Alaska and the burned area encompassed about 26,700 km2. This was the largest burned area since 1956, and combined with an additional 19,000 km2 burned in 2005 (third-largest fire year), the total burned area comprised about 10% of the Alaskan boreal forest in just two years. To clarify the background of the many large-scale fires in 2004, spatial and temporal analyses using various data were performed in this paper. The derived results allow the following conclusion. Dry and warm weather conditions with strong persistent winds are crucial for fires. In 2004, easterly winds from Canada caused two daily hotspot peaks in late June and late August; one daily hotspot peak in mid-July was caused by southwesterly winds from Bethel or the Bristol Bay. These persistent winds lasted for about one week and promoted fire expansion. The above wind conditions in June and August were caused by the development of a high-pressure system over the Beaufort Sea under a persistent blocking ridge over Alaska.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0150.005

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInstitutional Repositories DataBase (IRDB)Same topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207