MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592381437 · doi:10.11648/j.aff.20170601.15

A Geospatial Analysis of Bark Beetle-Induced Wildfire Risk Zones in the Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest

2017· article· en· W2592381437 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M. Allain

Bibliographic record

VenueAgriculture Forestry and Fisheries · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersU.S. Forest ServiceVanderbilt University
KeywordsBark beetleInfestationGeographyVegetation (pathology)ForestryGeospatial analysisMountain pine beetleRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceCartographyPhysical geographyBark (sound)Biology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over the past 30 years mountain pine beetle (MPB) outbreaks have become widespread throughout the western US and Canada. MPB attacks leave acres of dead trees that may predispose forest landscapes to large fires. With the use of field work and geospatial technology, these outbreaks can be better mapped and assessed to evaluate forest health. This study is designed to map and classify bark beetle infestation in Washington's Wenatchee National Forest. Field work on seventeen randomly selected sites was conducted using the point-centered quarter method. Recent MPB outbreak areas were classified using National Agriculture Imagery Program (NAIP) imagery. A link between MPB attack and forest fires was then quantified using MODIS fire data. Lastly, a predictive infestation model was constructed using the following geophysical parameters: disturbance indices, Landsat TM5 classification of groundcover as well as vegetation stress using hyperspectral data. Selected imagery from the Hyperion sensor was used to run a minimum distance supervised classification in ENVI, in attempt to detect the early “green stage” of infestation. This study detected MPB spread and assessed the fire risk related to infestation.

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 score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.208
Teacher spread0.201 · 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

Citations0
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAgriculture Forestry and FisheriesSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207