MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W1624973288

Changes in escape fire occurrence rate in Canada's boreal forest under climate change

2010· article· en· W1624973288 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mike Wotton

Bibliographic record

VenueEGUGA · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeTaigaBorealEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationFire protectionGlobal changeFire regimeClimatologyGeneral Circulation ModelGeographyMeteorologyEcosystemEcologyForestry
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies have shown that fire occurrence (from both human and lightning causes) is expected to increase across the boreal forest in Canada (and in many other regions of the world) with the fire weather expected to accompany climatic change in the 21st Century. Knowing total number of fires on the landscape is important for fire managers as part of their determination of load on the suppression organization’s resources; however in terms of impact on the landscape (e.g., area burned or loss of values) it is that very small number of fires that escape initial attack that have the greatest impact. In this study, which covers the forest area of Canada, models of the probability of a fire escaping initial attack are developed based on the outputs of the Canadian FWI System, general fire cause and fire load. Using these models with outputs from recent General Circulation Model scenarios from the Hadley and Canadian Climate Centre were used and indicated an overall increase in expected fire escapes across the forested region of Canada. These increases are spatially quite variable however, due to the interaction between increased temperature and increased precipitation. Results between these two GCM scenarios do show some variation in parts of the country however, leading to some uncertainty in the absolute level of predicted change. The basic assumption of this analysis is that Canadian fire management agency efforts, in terms of response time and suppression resource levels, remain constant over time.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.098

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.200 · 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
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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