MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2067431820 · doi:10.1139/x04-112

Linking tree rings, summer aridity, and regional fire data: an example from the boreal forests of the Komi Republic, East European Russia

2004· article· en· W2067431820 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Igor Drobyshev, Mats Niklasson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicTree-ring climate responses
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLarchDendrochronologyAridity indexPhysical geographyEnvironmental scienceClimatologyBorealGeographyTaigaForestryAridPrecipitationMeteorologyEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To evaluate the potential use of tree-ring data as a proxy for fire activity at the scale of a large boreal region, we analyzed a set of regional tree-ring chronologies of Siberian larch (Larix sibirica L.), a spatially implicit annual fire record, and monthly climate data for the Komi Republic for the period 1950–1990. In most years, annually burned area was below 0.001% of the republic's forested area and reached up to 0.7% during fire-prone years. Principal components (PC) of summer aridity resolved 64.2% of the annual variation in the number of fires, 12.2% in the average fire size, and 59.2% in the annually burned area. In turn, tree-ring PCs explained 65.2% of variation in fire-related weather PCs. Dendrochronological reconstruction of the annual number of fires and of the log-transformed annually burned area predicted 27.0% and 40.1% of the high-frequency variance of these variables, respectively. Coefficient of efficiency, a measure of reconstruction usefulness, reached 0.081 (number of fires) and 0.315 (annual area burned), supporting the obtained index as a realistic proxy for regional fire activity. Decadal variation in coefficient of efficiency values suggested improved monitoring accuracy since 1960 and more effective fire suppression during the last studied decade (1980–1990).

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)0.004
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 score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.547

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.000
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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.125 · 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

Citations21
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicTree-ring climate responsesFrench-language works237,207