MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2139927441 · doi:10.1139/x00-025

Net primary productivity following forest fire for Canadian ecoregions

2000· article· en· W2139927441 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
B. D. Amiro, J M Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrimary productionTaigaEnvironmental scienceEcoregionBorealDisturbance (geology)Forest inventoryVegetation (pathology)Ecological successionProductivityFire regimeLand coverAdvanced very-high-resolution radiometerPhysical geographyForestryEcosystemClimatologySatelliteForest managementLand useEcologyGeographyAgroforestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent modelling results indicate that forest fires and other disturbances determine the magnitude of the Canadian forest carbon balance. The regeneration of post-fire vegetation is key to the recovery of net primary productivity (NPP) following fire. We geographically co-registered pixels classed using the Boreal Ecosystem Productivity Simulator, a process-based model with AVHRR (advanced very-high resolution radiometer) satellite estimates of leaf-area index and land cover type, with polygons from a recent database of large Canadian fires. NPP development with time since fire was derived for the first 15 years following the disturbance in the boreal and taiga ecozones. About 7 × 10 6 ha were analysed for over 500 fires occurring between 1980 and 1994. NPP increases linearly through this period, at rates that depend on ecoregion. A longer data set for the Boreal Plains ecozone of Alberta shows that NPP levels off at about 20-30 years and remains constant for 60 years. The NPP trajectories can be used as spatial averages to support models of forest carbon balance and succession through the most fire-prone regions of Canada.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.234
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.244 · 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.

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

Citations117
Published2000
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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