MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Soil Organic Matter: A Sustainability Indicator for Wildfire Control and Bioenergy Production in the Urban/Forest Interface

2014· article· en· W2103115374 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Juan A. Blanco, David Dubois, Dale Littlejohn, David N. Flanders, Peter M. Robinson, Molly Moshofsky, Clive Welham

Bibliographic record

VenueSoil Science Society of America Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsHEC MontréalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersPacific Institute for Climate Solutions
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceSustainabilityForest managementWarning systemEnvironmental resource managementAgroforestryEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Many rural communities in British Columbia (western Canada) are increasingly at risk from wildfire as temperatures rise and droughts become more frequent. In addition, these communities are also faced with rising fuel costs and a growing demand for heat as their populations increase. The fact that these communities are surrounded by forests presents an opportunity to combine community wildfire risk abatement with bioenergy development. We show how the ecological model FORECAST was linked with GIS and economic models to create a freely available online tool (FIRST Heat) to help other communities make their own screening‐level ecological assessments of combining wildfire risk control with district heating systems. The tool incorporates an ecological sustainability index based on the relative change in soil organic matter (SOM) after 50 yr of management compared with initial levels. Two thresholds were defined: 10% SOM lost (warning level) and 20% SOM lost (critical level). The tool was able to adequately capture the influences of ecological zone, stand age, site quality, and intensity of forest management on SOM losses. Stands in the sub‐boreal and arid interior were significantly more exposed to SOM losses than in other ecological zones, as well as soils in old‐growth forests. Stands in poor sites were significantly more sensitive to forest management than young and fertile sites. All things considered, our results show the suitability of incorporating ecological models and SOM thresholds in user‐friendly decision‐support tools to successfully transfer scientific knowledge on forest soils to local stakeholders and decision makers.

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)0.001
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 score0.367
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.207 · 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

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSoil Science Society of America JournalSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207