Using tree-ring records to calibrate peak detection in fire reconstructions based on sedimentary charcoal records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared fire episodes over the past 150 years reconstructed using charcoal particles retrieved from well-dated sediment deposits from two small lakes in the eastern Canadian boreal forest, with dendrochronological reconstructions of fire events from the corresponding watersheds. Fire scars and age structure of living trees highlighted three fire events (ad 1890, 1941, and 1989). To explore the ability to detect these fire events based on sedimentary charcoal records, we explored the influence of two user-determined parameters of a widely used peak-detection algorithm (the CharAnalysis software): (1) the temporal resolution used to interpolate charcoal series and (2) the width of the smoothing window used to model background noise. The signal-to-noise index (SNI) is often used to evaluate the ability to detect peaks in sedimentary charcoal records, which can be related to fire events. SNI values >3 identify records appropriate for peak detection. Selecting standard settings in paleoecological studies (median temporal resolution of the entire sequence and 500- to 1000-year window width) yielded higher global SNI values but failed to detect most recent fire events. Instead, selecting a shorter reference period (the past ~150 years) to determine the temporal resolution to interpolate the charcoal series and a narrower smoothing window (100 years) best matched the tree-ring data despite lower SNI values (often <3.0). However, Holocene fire history differed markedly when reconstructed using different smoothing window widths (100–150 years vs >300 years). Consequently, we suggest using the smallest window width yielding a SNI >3. Practitioners must not necessarily focus on obtaining the highest possible SNI, usually related to wide smoothing windows. We also suggest that fire history reconstructions should focus on core sections presenting fairly constant sedimentation rates. Alternatively, sediments could be subsampled after age–depth models have been obtained.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".