MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2297421703 · doi:10.1111/ecog.01849

Exploiting Poisson additivity to predict fire frequency from maps of fire weather and land cover in boreal forests of Québec, Canada

2016· article· en· W2297421703 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jean Marchal, Steve G. Cumming, Eliot J. B. McIntire

Bibliographic record

VenueEcography · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceLand coverBorealPoisson distributionTaigaPhysical geographyEcologyAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyLand useGeographyStatisticsMathematicsBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predictive models of fire frequency conditional on weather and land cover are essential to assess how future cover‐type distributions and weather conditions may influence fire regimes. We modelled the effects of bottom‐up variables (e.g. land cover) and top‐down variables (e.g. fire weather) simultaneously with data aggregated or interpolated to spatial and temporal units of 100 km 2 and 1 yr in the boreal forest of Québec, Canada. For models of human‐caused fires, we used road density as a surrogate for human access and behaviour. We exploited the additive property of Poisson distributions to estimate cover‐type specific fire count rates, which would normally not be possible with data of this spatial resolution. We used piecewise linear functions to model nonlinear relations between fire weather and fire frequency for each cover‐type simultaneously. The estimated conditional rates may be considered as expected mean counts per unit area and time. It follows that these rates can be rescaled to arbitrary spatial and temporal extents. Our results showed fire frequency increased nonlinearly as aridity increased and more quickly in disturbed areas than other types. Road density exerted the strongest influence on the frequency of human‐caused fires, which were positively correlated with road density. The estimates may be used to parameterize the fire ignition component of spatial simulation models, which often have a resolution different from that at which the data were collected. This is an essential step in incorporating biotic and abiotic feedbacks, land‐cover dynamics, and climate projections into ecological forecasting. The insight into the power of Poisson additivity to reveal high‐resolution ecological processes from low‐resolution data could have applications in other areas of ecology.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.434

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.169
Teacher spread0.165 · 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.

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

Citations31
Published2016
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcographySame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207