MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792400295 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.2128

Variability and drivers of burn severity in the northwestern Canadian boreal forest

2018· article· en· W2792400295 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaParks Canada
KeywordsTaigaBorealEnvironmental scienceVegetation (pathology)CanopyPhysical geographyFire regimePrescribed burnSevere burnEcologyEcosystemForestryGeographyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Burn severity (ecological impacts of fire on vegetation and soils) influences post‐fire stand structure and species composition. The spatial pattern of burn severity may compound the ecological impacts of fire through distances to seed sources and availability of bud banks and seedbeds. Land managers require spatial burn severity data to manage post‐fire risks, ecosystem recovery, and assess the outcomes of fires. This research seeks to characterize and explain variability in burn severity in the northwestern boreal forest. We assessed burn severity one year post‐fire in six large wildfires that burned in 2014. We measured burn severity using the Composite Burn Index, surface Burn Severity Index, Canopy Fire Severity Index, and percent overstory mortality, describing a range of surface and overstory fire effects. Burn severity was variable, ranging from unburned residuals to complete overstory mortality and intense combustion. We related field measurements to remotely sensed multispectral burn severity metrics of the differenced Normalized Burn Ratio ( dNBR ), the Relativized dNBR , and the Relativized Burn Ratio. Diagnostic models of burn severity using relativized metrics had lower errors and better (though not significantly so) fits to the field data. Spatial patterns of burn severity were consistent with those observed in other large fires in North America. Stand‐replacing patches were large, aggregated, and covered the largest proportion of the landscape. These patterns were not consistent across the four mapped burn severity field metrics, suggesting such metrics may be viewed as related, but complementary, as they depict different aspects of severity. Prognostic models indicated burn severity was explained by pre‐fire stand structure and composition, topoedaphic context, and fire weather at time of burning. Wetlands burned less severely than uplands, and open stands with high basal areas experienced lower burn severity in upland vegetation communities. This research offers an enhanced understanding of the relationship between ground observations and remotely sensed severity metrics, in conjunction with stand‐level drivers of burn severity. The diverse fuel complexes and extreme fire weather during the 2014 fire season produced the complex patterns and broad range of burn severity observed.

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.270
Threshold uncertainty score0.723

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.185
Teacher spread0.181 · 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