Quantifying burned area for North American forests: Implications for direct reduction of carbon stocks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[1] A synthesis was carried out to analyze information available to quantify fire activity and burned area across North America, including a comparison of different data sources and an assessment of how variations in burned area estimate impact carbon emissions from fires. Data sets maintained by fire management agencies provide the longest record of burned area information. Canada and Alaska have the most well developed data sets consisting of the perimeters of large fires (>200 ha) going back to 1959 and 1950, respectively. A similar data set back to 1980 exists for the Conterminous U.S., but contains data only from federal land management agencies. During the early half of the 20th century, average burned area across North America ranged between 10 and 20 × 106 ha yr−1, largely because of frequent surface fires in the southeastern U.S. Over the past two decades, an average of 5 × 106 ha yr−1 has burned. Moderate-resolution (500–1000 m) satellite burned area products information products appear to either underestimate burned area (GFED3 and MCD45A1) or significantly overestimate burned area (L3JRC and GLOBCARBON). Of all the satellite data products, the GFED3 data set provides the most consistent source of burned area when compared to fire management data. Because they do not suitably reflect actual fire activity, the L3JRC and GLOBCARBON burned area data sets are not suitable for use in carbon cycle studies in North America. The MCD45A1 data set appears to map a higher fraction of burned area in low biomass areas compared to the GFED3 data set.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".