MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2091422874 · doi:10.1071/wf08141

Determinants of inter-annual variation in the area burnt in a semiarid African savanna

2011· article· en· W2091422874 on OpenAlexaff
C. M. Mulqueeny, Peter Goodman, T.G. O’Connor

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Wildland Fire · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRangeland Management and Livestock Ecology
Canadian institutionsCascades (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDry seasonWet seasonFire regimeEnvironmental scienceBorealMediterranean climateGeographyHydrology (agriculture)EcologyAgronomyEcosystemBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fire is a key driver of savannas. It was predicted that the area of a summer-rainfall savanna burnt per annum should depend on the amount of fuel, which depends on variable grass production resulting from variable rainfall, ‘carry-over’ from the preceding season and attrition of fuel by herbivores. Most fires occur during the dry season, thus the amount of green growth resulting from occasional winter rainfall could influence fuel combustibility and therefore the area burnt. These predictions were examined with a 37-year (1963–99) data set for Mkuzi Game Reserve, South Africa. Total area burnt was related to wet season rainfall separately for years with a ‘wet’ dry season or a ‘dry’ dry season. Against prediction, the amount of dry-season rainfall had no influence on the total area burnt. For years with a ‘dry’ dry season, rainfall of the preceding wet season had an additional influence. Herbivore density had no influence. A dry-season burn was twice as large as a wet-season burn, and the largest burns were the most intense. Monitoring of wet season rainfall is sufficient for planning burning programs. Intense, large fires can be achieved for control of bush encroachment following 2 or more successive years of high rainfall.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.218 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Wildland FireSame topicRangeland Management and Livestock EcologyFrench-language works237,207