MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980894578 · doi:10.1002/joc.6363

An empirical prediction approach for seasonal fire risk in the boreal forests

2019· article· en· W2980894578 on OpenAlexaff
Jonathan Eden, Folmer Krikken, Igor Drobyshev

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Climatology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceBorealTaigaBiomeClimatologyBoreal ecosystemFire regimeClimate changePrecipitationEcosystemMeteorologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The ability to predict forest fire risk at monthly, seasonal and above‐annual time scales is critical to mitigate its impacts, including fire‐driven dynamics of ecosystem and socio‐economic services. Fire is the primary driving factor of the ecosystem dynamics in the boreal forest, directly affecting global carbon balance and atmospheric concentrations of the trace gases including carbon dioxide. Resilience of the ocean–atmosphere system provides potential for advanced detection of upcoming fire season intensity. Here, we report on the development of a probabilistic empirical prediction system for forest fire risk on monthly‐to‐seasonal timescales across the circumboreal region. Quasi‐operational ensemble forecasts are generated for monthly drought code (MDC), an established indicator for seasonal fire activity in the Boreal biome based on monthly maximum temperature and precipitation values. Historical MDC forecasts are validated against observations, with good skill found across northern Eurasia and North America. In addition, we show that the MDC forecasts are an excellent indicator for satellite‐derived observations of burned area in large parts of the Boreal region. Our discussion considers the relative value of forecast information to a range of stakeholders when disseminated before and during the fire season. We also discuss the wider role of empirical predictions in benchmarking dynamical forecast systems and in conveying forecast information in a simple and digestible manner.

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)0.006
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.281 · 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

Citations14
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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