MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2330802138 · doi:10.5558/tfc2014-122

The El Niño Southern Oscillation index and wildfire prediction in British Columbia

2014· article· en· W2330802138 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Zhen Xu, G. Cornelis van Kooten

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEl Niño Southern OscillationEnvironmental scienceSouthern oscillationIndex (typography)LogitGeographyClimatologyMeteorologyStatisticsMathematicsGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study investigates the potential to predict monthly wildfires and area burned in British Columbia's interior using El Niño Southern Oscillation (ENSO). The zero-inflated negative binomial (ZINB) and the generalized Pareto (GP) distributions are used, respectively, to account for uncertainty in wildfire frequency and area burned. Results indicate that a four-month lag of the ENSO index has a strong positive influence on monthly wildfire occurrence. Upon fitting the GP distribution with a logit model regressed on the ENSO index, we predict the probabilities that monthly area burned exceeds 1700 ha and find that risks of large fires are significantly higher in northwestern BC. However, the ENSO is likely unable to provide consistent predictions of the total area burned in any month. Sensitivity analysis indicates that increases in the mean value of the monthly ENSO index result in a small increase in the predicted number of fires and an increase in the probability of large burns. This study has several implications for decision-making regarding firefighting budget planning and insurance for firefighting expenditures.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.095
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.178
Teacher spread0.175 · 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry Chronicle→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→