Model-specification uncertainty in future area burned by wildfires in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change will drive significant changes in annual area burned (burning rates) in the boreal forest although the trends, which are highly variable among studies, which may be caused by model specifications. In order to investigate this, we used 100 models predicting burning rates that are based on two predictor datasets (annual or 30-year averages) and five statistical algorithms (generalised linear model (GLM), random forest, gradient-boosted model (GBM), regression trees, multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS)) to build a consensus model projecting future burning rates in boreal Canada with three global climate models (GCMs) (CanESM2, HadGEM and MIROC) and three anthropogenic climate forcing scenarios (RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5). Results of the ensemble models were then used to quantify and map the uncertainty created by model specifications. The consensus model projects strong increase (>4-fold by 2080s) in burning rates, particularly under high climate-forcing scenarios. Even with very high goodness-of-fit in the consensus model, the model-specification uncertainty for future periods (>200%) could still be much higher than that of different GCMs and RCP scenarios. When tallied, we show that the total uncertainty could greatly hinder our ability to detect significant trends in burning rates for much of Canada at the end of the 21st century.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".