MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2097986553 · doi:10.5539/mas.v9n3p117

A 25-Year History of Spatial and Temporal Trends in Wildfire Activity in Oregon and Washington, U.S.A.

2015· article· en· W2097986553 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Michael G. Wing, Justin Long

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceQuadratPrecipitationPhysical geographyClimatologySpatial ecologySpatial distributionCommon spatial patternGeospatial analysisGeographyMeteorologyCartographyStatisticsEcologyMathematicsRemote sensingGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined spatial and temporal trends in large fire incidents (> 400 ha) in Oregon and Washington. Our primary objectives were to examine whether patterns existed in the spatial and temporal distribution of large fires and to explore the relationship of patterns to climate variables using a geographic information system. We analyzed a historical fire database containing over 1000 fire incidents over a 25-year time period (1984 – 2008). We compared this fire database to climate variables representing historical estimates of average monthly maximum temperature, average monthly minimum temperate, average monthly dewpoint, and average monthly precipitation. Results showed an increasing trend in fire frequency, extent, magnitude, and fire season duration. Geospatial analytical techniques such as nearest neighbor analysis, quartic kernel density estimation, and quadrat analysis identified spatial patterning and hot spots of fire occurrence and size. The relationship of fire occurrence and size to climate variables was generally statistically indiscernible in our analysis results although some correlation was evident when fires were analyzed separately according to burn severity.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.265
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations6
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207