MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164833045 · doi:10.1139/x00-197

Direct carbon emissions from Canadian forest fires, 1959-1999

2001· article· en· W2164833045 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
B. D. Amiro, J. B. Todd, B. Mike Wotton, K. A. Logan, Mike Flannigan, B. J. Stocks, Joseph A. Mason, David L. Martell, Kelvin Hirsch

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceTaigaBorealGreenhouse gasSink (geography)Carbon sinkCarbon dioxideCarbon fibersForestryAtmospheric sciencesClimate changeGeographyEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Direct emissions of carbon from Canadian forest fires were estimated for all Canada and for each ecozone for the period 1959–1999. The estimates were based on a data base of large fires for the country and calculations of fuel consumption for each fire using the Canadian Forest Fire Behaviour Prediction System. This technique used the fire locations and start dates to estimate prevailing fire weather and fuel type for each of about 11 000 fires. An average of 2 × 106 ha·year–1 was burned in this period, varying from 0.3 × 106 ha in 1978 to 7.5 × 106 ha in 1989. Ecozones of the boreal and taiga areas experienced the greatest area burned, releasing most of the carbon (C). The mean area-weighted fuel consumption for all fires was 2.6 kg dry fuel·m–2 (1.3 kg C·m–2), but ecozones vary from 1.8 to 3.9 kg dry fuel·m–2. The mean annual estimate of direct carbon emissions was 27 ± 6 Tg C·year–1. Individual years ranged from 3 to 115 Tg C·year–1. These direct fire emissions represent about 18% of the current carbon dioxide emissions from the Canadian energy sector, on average, but vary from 2 to 75% among years. Post-fire effects cause an additional loss of carbon and changes to the forest sink condition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.246 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations354
Published2001
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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