MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2531978625 · doi:10.5558/tfc2016-056

Forest fire management expenditures in Canada: 1970–2013

2016· article· en· W2531978625 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
B. J. Stocks, David L. Martell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoOntario Forest Research Institute
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceUniversity of Toronto
KeywordsProductivityForest managementEnvironmental resource managementData managementVariable (mathematics)Wildfire suppressionFire protectionBusinessComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeographyForestryEngineeringDatabaseEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fire plays a vital role in forest management in Canada and the cost of fire management varies significantly both spatially and temporally. We present the fixed (pre-suppression) and variable (suppression) expenditures incurred by Canadian forest and wildland fire management agencies over the period 1970–2013. We describe how the data was compiled, display it in a graphical format, present the results of our preliminary analysis of that data and discuss those results and the need to investigate both fire management productivity and the factors that influence it. The data is available in a public repository where it can be readily accessed by others who wish to explore it in further detail.

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)0.003
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 score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.374

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.009
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.188
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations81
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207