An analysis of controls on fire activity in boreal Canada: comparing models built with different temporal resolutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fire regimes of the Canadian boreal forest are driven by certain environmental factors that are highly variable from year to year (e.g., temperature, precipitation) and others that are relatively stable (e.g., land cover, topography). Studies examining the relative influence of these environmental drivers on fire activity suggest that models making explicit use of interannual variability appear to better capture years of climate extremes, whereas those using a temporal average of all available years highlight the importance of land-cover variables. It has been suggested that fire models built at different temporal resolutions may provide a complementary understanding of controls on fire regimes, but this claim has not been tested explicitly with parallel data and modeling approaches. We addressed this issue by building two models of area burned for the period 1980–2010 using 14 explanatory variables to describe ignitions, vegetation, climate, and topography. We built one model at an annual resolution, with climate and some land-cover variables being updated annually, and the other model using 31-year fire “climatology” based on averaged variables. Despite substantial differences in the variables' contributions to the two models, their predictions were broadly similar, which suggests coherence between the spatial patterns of annually varying climate extremes and long-term climate normals. Where the models' predictions diverged, discrepancies between the annual and averaged models could be attributed to specific explanatory variables. For instance, annually updating land cover allowed us to identify a possible negative feedback between flammable biomass and fire activity. These results show that building models at more than one temporal resolution affords a deeper understanding of controls on fire activity in boreal Canada than can be achieved by examining a single model. However, in terms of spatial predictions, the additional effort required to build annual models of fire activity may not always be warranted in this study area. From a management and policy standpoint, this key finding should boost confidence in models that incorporate climatic normals, thereby providing a stronger foundation on which to make decisions on adaptation and mitigation strategies for future fire activity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".