MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2105469226 · doi:10.5558/tfc81365-3

Forest fuel treatments in western North America: Merging silviculture and fire management

2005· article· en· W2105469226 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Morris C. Johnson, David L. Peterson

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSilvicultureThinningForest managementEnvironmental scienceFire hazardVegetation (pathology)Prescribed burnEnvironmental resource managementForestryAgroforestryGeographyEnvironmental protection

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For many years silviculture and fire management have mostly been separate forestry disciplines with disparate objectives and activities. However, in order to accomplish complex and multiple management objectives related to forest structure, fuels, and fire disturbance, these two disciplines must be effectively integrated in science and practice. We have linked scientific and management tools to develop an analytical approach that allows resource managers to quantify and evaluate the effectiveness of alternative fuel treatments in dry interior forests of western North America. The principal tool is the Fire and Fuels Extension of the Forest Vegetation Simulator (FFE-FVS) for characterizing fuel succession and fire behaviour, and for quantifying and visualizing stand structure. FFE-FVS provides a user-friendly framework that facilitates rapid evaluation of thinning and surface fuel treatments intended to reduce crown fire potential and fireline intensity. This approach quantifies fire hazard at small and large spatial scales, assists with treatment priorities and schedules, and generates stand and landscape visualizations that facilitate decisions about appropriate fuel treatments. Key words: fire behaviour, fire hazard, fuel treatments, silviculture

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)0.000
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 score0.060
Threshold uncertainty score0.667

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.204
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations11
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207