MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3002933279 · doi:10.1016/j.dib.2020.105171

A geospatial dataset providing first-order indicators of wildfire risks to water supply in Canada and Alaska

2020· article· en· W3002933279 on OpenAlexafffundabout
François‐Nicolas Robinne

Bibliographic record

VenueData in Brief · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersGlobal Water FuturesCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsGeospatial analysisEnvironmental resource managementWatershedWater securityGeographic information systemPopulationEnvironmental scienceWildland–urban interfaceWater resourcesGeographyComputer scienceCartographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

First-order, high level indicators of wildfire risk to water resources are paramount to understand growing wildfire-related water security challenges in Canada and Alaska. Information pertaining to forest cover, fire activity, water availability, and location of populated places was collected from multiple institutional sources. Manual and semi-automated processes were used to clean disparate source data and create four harmonized geospatial layers whose content was summarized for each of the 1468 existing sub-sub watersheds covering Alaska and Canada. The final dataset provides a master layer based on sub-sub-watershed boundaries that contains relevant information to create spatial indicators of wildfire risk to water security. These can be used to identify potentially at-risk regions in high-latitude watersheds of North America. The dataset can be further used within a larger, general risk assessment framework considering other environmental stressors to water security, including climate change and population growth. The dataset described herein was used to make a figure in the manuscript "Wildfire impacts on hydrologic ecosystem services in North American high-latitude forests: A scoping review" by Robinne et al. [1].

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 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)0.000
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 score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.408

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.225
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 teacher head, 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueData in BriefSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207