MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2773736091 · doi:10.17975/sfj-2017-015

Effects of Climate Change on Canadian Forest Fires

2017· article· en· W2773736091 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Curtis Chong, Emily Huang, Leon Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueSTEM Fellowship Journal · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsPierre Elliott Trudeau Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceClimate changePrecipitationDamagesWind speedMeteorologyLightning (connector)Environmental resource managementGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study aimed to determine the effects of climate change on forest fire trends in Canada by measuring correlations between weather conditions, and the frequencies and sizes of forest fires. Upon identifying the correlations, a model was created to understand future forest fire trends in order to prevent the increasing occurrences of forest fires, and to devise solutions to reduce their damages. The data obtained from the Canadian National Fire Database was modeled with a linear regression to predict and correlate weather conditions with future forest fire trends. It was concluded that temperature and wind speed correlated positively with forest fire frequency and size, while precipitation presented a negative correlation. To reduce the harmful effects of forest fires, cloud seeding can be used to create more precipitation, and wind farms can be built to lower wind speeds and attract lightning. However, more research and stricter policies directly targeting climate change is a necessity when it comes to decreasing forest fire trends and improving longterm security.

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)0.002
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 score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.075

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSTEM Fellowship JournalSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207