MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2803407019 · doi:10.1029/2018ef000867

Reframing the Challenge of Global Wildfire Threats to Water Supplies

2018· article· en· W2803407019 on OpenAlexafffund
Dennis W. Hallema, François‐Nicolas Robinne, Kevin D. Bladon

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth s Future · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaAlberta Environment and Protected Areas
FundersOak Ridge Institute for Science and EducationGlobal Water FuturesU.S. Department of EnergyJoint Fire Science ProgramU.S. Forest ServiceOak Ridge Associated Universities
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceResilience (materials science)Cognitive reframingWater securityEnvironmental resource managementWater supplyNatural resource economicsWater resource managementWater resourcesEnvironmental engineeringEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The timing, extent, and severity of forest wildfires have increased in many parts of the world in recent decades. These wildfires can have substantial and devastating impacts on water supply, ecohydrological systems, and sociohydrosystems. Existing frameworks to assess the magnitude and spatial extent of these effects generally focus on local processes or services and are not readily transferable to other regions. However, there is a growing need for regional, continental, and global scale indices to assess the potential effect of wildfires on freshwater availability and water supply resilience. Such indices must consider both the individual and compound effects of wildfires. In so doing, this will enable comprehensive insights on the water security paradigm and the value of hydrological services in fire‐affected areas around the globe.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0050.008
Open science0.0010.006
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations79
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth s FutureSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207