MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2072645881 · doi:10.1139/x09-176

Optimal spatial patterns of fuel management and timber harvest with fire risk

2010· article· en· W2072645881 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Masashi Konoshima, Heidi J. Albers, Claire A. Montgomery, Jeffrey L. Arthur

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest Management and Policy
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest Service
KeywordsHomogeneousEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceSpatial variabilitySpatial ecologyFire protectionProcess (computing)Spatial heterogeneityRange (aeronautics)Forest managementEnvironmental scienceRisk managementStochastic modellingRisk analysis (engineering)Operations researchBusinessEcologyEngineeringCivil engineeringMathematicsAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The stochastic and spatial nature of fire poses challenges for the cost-efficient allocation of fuel treatment over the landscape. A model that addresses complex but important components of fuel management decisions, spatial and dynamic aspects of fire risk, and a carefully designed framework that allows us to draw general insight into the optimal spatial pattern of management are necessary to provide a basis for developing efficient fuel treatment plans. For this purpose, we combine a physical fire model and a spatial-dynamic optimization model to explore harvest and fuel treatment across a hypothetical landscape under risk of a moving fire over a range of physical and economic conditions. Our model is able to describe spatial trade-offs involved in decision process, namely trade-offs between protection of on-site values and protection against fire spread. We found that the spatial configuration of management units can lead to heterogeneity in management across seemingly homogeneous units.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.510
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.262
Teacher spread0.247 · 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.

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

Citations60
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicForest Management and PolicyFrench-language works237,207