MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2055639236 · doi:10.1890/120332

Temperate and boreal forest mega‐fires: characteristics and challenges

2014· review· en· W2055639236 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Ecology and the Environment · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaNative Mental Health Association of Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEcosystemBorealDisturbance (geology)Fire regimeMega-Climate changeTaigaEnvironmental scienceMegacityEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEcologyPhysical geographyEnvironmental protectionForestryGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mega‐fires are often defined according to their size and intensity but are more accurately described by their socioeconomic impacts. Three factors – climate change, fire exclusion, and antecedent disturbance, collectively referred to as the “mega‐fire triangle” – likely contribute to today's mega‐fires. Some characteristics of mega‐fires may emulate historical fire regimes and can therefore sustain healthy fire‐prone ecosystems, but other attributes decrease ecosystem resiliency. A good example of a program that seeks to mitigate mega‐fires is located in Western Australia, where prescribed burning reduces wildfire intensity while conserving ecosystems. Crown‐fire‐adapted ecosystems are likely at higher risk of frequent mega‐fires as a result of climate change, as compared with other ecosystems once subject to frequent less severe fires. Fire and forest managers should recognize that mega‐fires will be a part of future wildland fire regimes and should develop strategies to reduce their undesired impacts.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.950
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.206
Teacher spread0.197 · 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