MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2768730870 · doi:10.1071/wf17008

Trend analysis of fire season length and extreme fire weather in North America between 1979 and 2015

2017· article· en· W2768730870 on OpenAlexaffabout
Piyush Jain, Xianli Wang, Mike Flannigan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Wildland Fire · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimatologyGeographyEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationPhysical geographyMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We have constructed a fire weather climatology over North America from 1979 to 2015 using the North American Regional Reanalysis dataset and the Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI) System. We tested for the presence of trends in potential fire season length, based on a meteorological definition, and extreme fire weather using the non-parametric Theil–Sen slope estimator and Mann–Kendall test. Applying field significance testing (i.e. joint significance of multiple tests) allowed the identification of the locations of significant trends, taking into account spatial correlations. Fire season length was found to be increasing over large areas of North America, especially in eastern Canada and the south-western US, which is consistent with a later fire season end and an earlier fire season start. Both positive and negative trends in potential fire spread days and the 99th percentile of FWI occurred in Canada and the contiguous United States, although the trends of largest magnitude and statistical significance were mostly positive. In contrast, the proportion of trends with significant decreases in these variables were much lower, indicating an overall increase in extreme fire weather. The smaller proportion of significant positive trends found over Canada reflects the truncation of the time series, necessary because assimilation of precipitation observations over Canada ceased in the reanalysis post-2002.

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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.426

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations170
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Wildland FireSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207