Lightning‐caused forest fire risk in Northwestern Ontario, Canada, is increasing and associated with anomalies in fire weather
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Results from studies of climate model scenarios suggest that forest fire ignitions will increase in Canada in the future because of climate change. Yet, there have been few studies that monitor long‐term trends in Canadian historical fire records. Although there are seasonal trends to historically reported fires within a fire season, there are also periods of zero‐heavy behaviour as well as periods during which more fires are reported than usual. We develop a flexible mixture‐modelling framework that permits the joint assessment of temporal trends in these dominant characteristics in terms of fire risk, defined as the daily probability that one or more fires are reported. The statistical power of such trend tests are also evaluated. We identify statistically significant increases in lightning‐caused fire risk between 1963 and 2009 in the boreal forest regions of the Rainy River and Lake of the Woods ecoregions in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. These observed changes in lightning‐caused fire risk were found to be associated with temperature and fire danger rating index anomalies. If such trends continue into the future, the duration of elevated periods of lightning‐caused forest fire risk is forecasted to increase by over 50% by the middle of this century. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it