Integrated spatial fire and forest management planning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest management planners usually treat potential fire loss estimates as exogenous parameters in their timber production planning processes. When they do so, they do not account for the fact that forest access road construction, timber harvesting, and silvicultural activities can alter a landscape’s vegetation or fuel composition, and they ignore the possibility that such activities may influence future fire losses. We develop an integrated fire and forest management planning methodology that accounts for and exploits such interactions. Our methodology is based on fire occurrence, suppression, and spread models, a fire protection value model that identifies crucial stands, the harvesting of which can have a significant influence on the spread of fires across the landscape, and a spatially explicit timber harvest scheduling model. We illustrate its use by applying it to a forest management unit in the boreal forest region of the province of Alberta in western Canada. We found that for our study area, integrated fire – forest management planning based on our methodology could result in an 8.1% increase in net present value when compared with traditional planning in which fire loss is treated as an exogenous factor.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".