MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1964102965 · doi:10.1139/x03-175

Influence of landscape structure on patterns of forest fires in boreal forest landscapes in Sweden

2004· article· en· W1964102965 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Erik Hellberg, Mats Niklasson, Anders Granström

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSvenska Forskningsrådet Formas
KeywordsMireTaigaBorealPeatScots pineWetlandFire regimeEnvironmental sciencePhysical geographyEcologyGeographyForestryEcosystemPinus <genus>Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To analyze the effect of landscape structure (viz. amount of wetlands) on the past forest fire regime in boreal Sweden, we reconstructed detailed fire histories by cross-dating fire scars in living and dead Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris L.) in two different landscape types: mire-free landscapes with a low proportion (1%–2%) of mires and mire-rich landscapes with a high proportion (21%–33%) of mires. Two localities were selected and at each one, adjacent mire-free and mire-rich areas of 256–601 ha were sampled. Over the studied 650-year period, the two landscape types differed primarily in the fire intervals and sizes of fires. In the mire-rich landscapes, fires had frequently stopped against mire elements. The net effect was significantly longer fire intervals in the mire-rich than in the mire-free landscape (on average, 32 versus 56 years). The mire-rich areas also had a tail of very long fire intervals lacking in the mire-free areas (maximal interval 292 years). We conclude that mires can have a profound effect on both spatial and temporal patterns of forest fires in the boreal forest, but only when they are effective fuel breaks (i.e., they are wet enough) at the time the fires burn and if they truly dissect the nonmire portion of the forest landscape.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score0.698

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.255 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations87
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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