MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2045398695 · doi:10.1029/2006gl025677

Recent changes in the fire regime across the North American boreal region—Spatial and temporal patterns of burning across Canada and Alaska

2006· article· en· W2045398695 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Eric S. Kasischke, Merritt R. Turetsky

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorealFire regimeEnvironmental scienceClimatologyTaigaClimate changePhysical geographyPeriod (music)EcosystemAtmospheric sciencesGeographyGeologyOceanographyEcologyForestryArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We used historic records from 1959–99 to explore fire regime characteristics at ecozone scales across the entire North American boreal region (NABR). Shifts in the NABR fire regime between the 1960s/70s and the 1980s/90s were characterized by a doubling of annual burned area and more than a doubling of the frequency of larger fire years because of more large fire events (>1,000 km 2 ). The proportion of total burned area from human‐ignited fires decreased over this same time period, while the proportion of burning during the early and late‐ growing‐seasons increased. Trends in increased burned area were consistent across the NABR ecozones, though the western ecozones experienced greater increases in larger fire years compared to the eastern ecozones. Seasonal patterns of burning differed among ecozones. Along with the climate warming, changes in the fire regime characteristics may be an important driver of future ecosystem processes in the NABR.

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)0.001
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 score0.318
Threshold uncertainty score0.640

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations799
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207