MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1963632976 · doi:10.1139/x05-005

Fire frequency for the transitional mixedwood forest of Timiskaming, Quebec, Canada

2005· article· en· W1963632976 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Daniel J. Grenier, Yves Bergeron, Daniel Kneeshaw, Sylvie Gauthier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsFire regimeBorealTaigaFire historyFire ecologyEnvironmental scienceClimate changeBoreal ecosystemPhysical geographyForestryEcosystemGeographyFire protectionEcologyArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fire history was reconstructed for a 2500-km2 area at the interface between the boreal coniferous and northern hardwood forests of southwestern Quebec. The fire cycle, the time required for an area equal to the study site to burn once over, was described using a random sampling strategy that included dendrochronological techniques in conjunction with provincial and national government archival data. Physiographic elements were not found to spatially influence fire frequency; however, human land-use patterns were observed to significantly affect the fire frequency. A temporal shift in fire frequency was also detected, which coincided with the period of Euro-Canadian colonization and known extreme dry years for the study site. Additionally, a fire-free period was identified in the most recent times that could be associated with fire suppression and climate change. The estimated cycles (approx. 188–314 years) for the southeastern section of the study area were thought to better represent the natural cycles for this transition zone as a result of less anthropogenic influence. The importance of gap-type dynamics becomes evident with the increased presence of old-growth forest, given the derived fire cycle estimations for the region. Even-aged management with short rotations, consequently, is questioned because fire cycle estimations suggest more complex harvest systems using an ecosystem management approach.

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)0.001
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 score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations43
Published2005
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207