MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2606165139 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2016-0475

Fuel accumulation in a high-frequency boreal wildfire regime: from wetland to upland

2017· article· en· W2606165139 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Dan K. Thompson, Marc‐André Parisien, Jean‐François Morin, Koreen Millard, Chris P. S. Larsen, Brian N. Simpson

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsParks CanadaCarleton UniversityNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaigaBlack spruceBorealEnvironmental scienceFlammable liquidWetlandCanopyBiomass (ecology)Fire regimeNational parkForestryEcologyAgroforestryGeographyEcosystemBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although it is increasingly accepted that young (e.g., ≤30 years) stands originating from wildfire are considerably less flammable than older stands in the boreal forest of North America, the role of fuel availability and structure in this phenomenon has not been thoroughly investigated. As a regional study in a high-frequency fire regime, detailed wildfire fuel loading and structure were measured in 66 sites including both wetlands and uplands in the Boreal Plains landscape of Wood Buffalo National Park in northwestern Canada. Overall, a significant increase in total flammable biomass occurred in upland sites over 97 years, but this increase was not consistently observed in wetlands, except where there was dense tree cover. Fuel accumulation was highly moderated by canopy fuels, as surface fuels were relatively constant across differing site types and time since fire, averaging 0.4 kg·m−2. Significant but gradual canopy fuel accumulation was observed in moist conifer upland forests dominated by mature black spruce (Picea mariana (Mill.) B.S.P.) or white spruce (Picea glauca (Moench) Voss) over 100 years since fire. Outside of these mature moist conifer uplands, there was no difference in total fuel loading between other upland forests and across the gradient of treed to open wetlands.

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)0.000
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 score0.963
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations48
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207