Comparison of charcoal and tree-ring records of recent fires in the eastern Klamath Mountains, California, USA
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fire-history reconstructions are based on tree-ring records that span the last few centuries and charcoal data from lake-sediment cores that extend back several thousand years. The two approaches have unique strengths and weaknesses in their ability to depict past fire events and fire regimes, and most comparisons of these datasets in western conifer forests have focused on sites characterized by high-severity crown fires. Tree-ring and charcoal data spanning the last 300 years in four watersheds in the montane forests of the Klamath Mountains provided an opportunity to compare the records in a fire regime of frequent low- to moderate-severity surface events. The charcoal data were obtained from small lakes, and tree-ring records were derived from fire-scar chronologies at multiple sites within each watershed. The comparison indicates that the tree-ring records detected individual fires not evident in the lake-sediment profiles, whereas the charcoal data disclosed variations in fuel loading and general levels of burning at broader spatial scales. Regional burning in the late 19th and early 20th centuries was evident in the lake-sediment records, and both datasets registered a decline in fire activity in the late 20th century. Thus, the two types of data provide complementary as well as supplementary information on past fire conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".