MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011056924 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2014-0125

Strategic analysis of forest vulnerability to risk related to fire: an example from the coniferous boreal forest of Quebec

2015· article· en· W2011056924 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Sylvie Gauthier, Frédéric Raulier, Hakim Ouzennou, Jean-Pierre Saucier

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsMinistère des Ressources naturelles et des ForêtsCentre de Géomatique du QuébecNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaigaBorealProductivityContext (archaeology)Vulnerability (computing)Fire regimeDisturbance (geology)Forest managementGeographyClimate changeEnvironmental scienceForestrySustainabilityPhysical geographyEnvironmental resource managementAgroforestryEcologyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As fire is a major disturbance in boreal forests, it is now recognized that it has to be taken into account in forest management planning. Moreover, as the time of exposure to fire is related to stand productivity, combining information on productivity and fire should help in assessing the potential to sustainably manage forests. We present a method to assess potential vulnerability to the risk of fire and illustrate it in the boreal coniferous forest of Quebec. This method takes into account some sources of uncertainty related to the estimation of productivity and fire risk. Spatialization of stand productivity from growth and yield curves allowed us to compute the area comprised of productive stands of each district with or without considering fire risk. Results showed that productive area is generally decreasing with decreasing degree-days, increasing elevation, or in relation to surficial geology. Furthermore, districts with moderate to good productivity were found to be vulnerable to fire when burn rates were greater than 0.333%·year –1 . Our innovative approach allowed us to assess the vulnerability of the districts to fire and could be helpful in many regions in the context of a projected increase in future area burned under climate change.

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)0.008
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 score0.040
Threshold uncertainty score0.609

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.312
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations55
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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