They often say severe, presumably unaware of its ambiguity. There is fire severity (the measure of biomass consumption from a fire), there used to be a whole Severe category for the Australian fire danger rating system, the Canadian system includes a Daily Severity Rating (from which monthly and seasonal severity can be calculated) and of course there is the everyday sense of the word, meaning something quite extreme (a word that carries its own varied connotations, one of which is a category under the old and new Australian fire danger rating system!).
One of these days I might write about the converse problem, one suffered by many students, which is to overcite, on account of not wanting to seem like they are out of their depth. From bitter experience, I can reassure students that their grasp of the literature may never be better than in these early days! It's a tricky balance for sure.
My top tip, and maybe subject of *another* post, would be to make sure that the paper you are citing a) supports the claim you are making and b) does so directly, rather than by blithely asserting it without evidence or by referring to someone else who did the actual work.
Yes, on their own the meaning of worse or severe are as clear as mud. Worse is also a relative term.
At the very least authors need to define what they mean by worse!
Very true Robert.
They often say severe, presumably unaware of its ambiguity. There is fire severity (the measure of biomass consumption from a fire), there used to be a whole Severe category for the Australian fire danger rating system, the Canadian system includes a Daily Severity Rating (from which monthly and seasonal severity can be calculated) and of course there is the everyday sense of the word, meaning something quite extreme (a word that carries its own varied connotations, one of which is a category under the old and new Australian fire danger rating system!).
Duly noted.
Sincerely (and thankfully),
A PhD student attempting to write their first fire paper.
thanks Doug.
One of these days I might write about the converse problem, one suffered by many students, which is to overcite, on account of not wanting to seem like they are out of their depth. From bitter experience, I can reassure students that their grasp of the literature may never be better than in these early days! It's a tricky balance for sure.
My top tip, and maybe subject of *another* post, would be to make sure that the paper you are citing a) supports the claim you are making and b) does so directly, rather than by blithely asserting it without evidence or by referring to someone else who did the actual work.
Good luck, you got this!