Spatial variability of stand-scale residuals in Ontario’s boreal forest fires
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Knowledge of postfire residuals in boreal forest landscapes is increasingly important for ecological applications and forest management. While many studies provide useful insight, knowledge of stand-scale postfire residual occurrence and variability remains fragmented and untested as formal hypotheses. We examined the spatial variability of stand-scale postfire residuals in boreal forests and tested hypotheses of their spatial associations. Based on the literature, we hypothesized that preburn forest cover characteristics, site conditions, proximity to water and fire edge, and local fire intensity influence the spatial variability of postfire residuals. To test these hypotheses, we studied live-tree and snag residuals in 11 boreal Ontario forest fires, using 660 sample points based on high resolution photography (1:408) captured immediately after the fires. The abundance of residuals varied considerably within and among these fires, precluding attempts to generalize estimates. Based on a linear mixed-effects model, our data did not support the hypotheses that preburn forest cover characteristics, site conditions, and proximity to water significantly affect the spatial variability of stand-scale residuals. The results do indicate, however, that stand-scale residual variability is associated with local fire intensity (strongly) and distance to fire edge (weakly).
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".