Characterizing crown fuel distribution for conifers in the interior western United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canopy fire hazard evaluation is essential for prioritizing fuel treatments and for assessing potential risk to firefighters during suppression activities. Fire hazard is usually expressed as predicted potential fire behavior, which is sensitive to the methodology used to quantitatively describe fuel profiles: methodologies that assume that fuel is distributed uniformly throughout crowns have been shown to predict less severe fire behavior than those that assume more realistic nonuniform fuel distributions. We used crown fuel data from seven interior western United States conifer species to characterize within-crown fuel distributions. Fuel was shifted upward and concentrated in crowns in crowded stands compared with crowns in open stands, which suggests that the vertical distribution of fuel is shaped by foliage concentration in favorable light environments near the top of crowns and echoes the predictable relationship between crown ratio and stand density. However, unlike crown ratio, the relationship between within-crown foliage distribution and stand density was independent of the shade tolerance of a species. This implies that there is a general relationship between stand density and within-crown fuel distribution for conifers and that species differences in fuel profiles related to shade tolerance are expressed primarily in the relationship between stand density and crown ratio.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".