MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099503119 · doi:10.1139/x09-078

Fire history of a central Nevada pinyon–juniper woodland

2009· article· en· W2099503119 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
John M. Bauer, Peter J. Weisberg

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWoodlandJuniperFire regimeShrublandFire historyFire ecologyGeographyDisturbance (geology)Environmental scienceEcologyShrubForestryGrasslandPhysical geographyHabitatEcosystemGeologyClimate changeBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our study reconstructed fire history (1445–2006) from tree rings for a Great Basin single-needle pinyon pine ( Pinus monophylla Torr & Frém.) – Utah juniper ( Juniperus osteosperma (Torr.) Little) woodland. Information from multiple lines of evidence, including dateable fire scars (n = 83), tree demography, and charred coarse woody debris, was used to quantify fire frequency, severity, and extent. Fire cycle models were developed using survivorship analysis of time-since-fire estimates. We investigated the spatial and temporal variation in historical fire regime, addressing the plausibility of postsettlement fire exclusion as an explanation for increased woodland area and density since the late 1800s. Historical fire regime was characterized by infrequent, small, high-severity fires. Estimated fire cycle (1570–1880) was 427 years, with no evidence of postsettlement stand-replacing fires. Topographic analyses indicated that in this drought-prone landscape, more mesic conditions favor continuous fuels that lead to more frequent or extensive fire. Superposed epoch analysis showed increased fire occurrence during drought years but with no influence of antecedent climatic conditions. More frequent grassland and shrubland fires were recorded by fire scars near valley floors. Thus, anthropogenic fire exclusion in adjacent, shrub-dominated communities presents a plausible mechanism for woodland expansion in the study area. However, there is little ecological justification for reintroducing fire to areas of historic woodland, where effects of fire exclusion have been minimal.

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)0.000
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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.179

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.230 · 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

Citations32
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207