MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065509880 · doi:10.1890/07-1289.1

Environmental controls on the distribution of wildfire at multiple spatial scales

2009· article· en· W2065509880 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

VenueEcological Monographs · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomeRange (aeronautics)TundraEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)EcologySpatial ecologyHabitatGeographySpatial distributionSpecies distributionPhysical geographyEcosystemRemote sensing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite its widespread occurrence globally, wildfire preferentially occupies an environmental middle ground and is significantly less prevalent in biomes characterized by environmental extremes (e.g., tundra, rain forests, and deserts). We evaluated the biophysical “environmental space” of wildfire from regional to subcontinental extents, with methods widely used for modeling habitat distributions. This approach is particularly suitable for the biogeographic study of wildfire, because it simultaneously considers patterns in multiple factors controlling wildfire suitability over large areas. We used the Maxent and boosted regression tree algorithms to assess wildfire–environment relationships for three levels of complexity (in terms of inclusion of variables) at three spatial scales: the conterminous United States, the state of California, and five wildfire‐prone ecoregions of California. The resulting models were projected geographically to obtain spatial predictions of wildfire suitability and were also applied to other regions to assess their generality and spatial transferability. Predictions of the potential range of wildfire had high classification accuracy; they also highlighted areas where wildfires had not recently been observed, indicating the potential (or past) suitability of these areas. The models identified several key variables that were not suspected to be important in the large‐scale control of wildfires, but which might indirectly affect control by influencing the presence of flammable vegetation. Models transferred to different areas were useful only when they overlapped appreciably with the target area's environmental space. This approach should allow exploration of the potential shifts in wildfire range in a changing climate, the potential for restoration of wildfire where it has been “extirpated,” and, conversely, the “invasiveness” of wildfire after changes in plant species composition. Our study demonstrates that habitat distribution models and related concepts can be used to characterize environmental controls on a natural disturbance process, but also that future work is needed to refine our understanding of the direct causal factors controlling wildfire at multiple spatial scales.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.818

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.186
Teacher spread0.180 · 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