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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite increasing concern about wildland fire risk in Canada, there is little synthesis of knowledge that could contribute to the development of a comprehensive risk framework for a wide range of values, which is an essential need for the country. With dramatic variability in costs and losses from this natural hazard, there must be more support for complex decision-making under the uncertainty of how to assess and manage risk to coexist with wildland fire. A long history of Canadian wildland fire research offers solid foundational knowledge related to risk, but the key knowledge gaps must be addressed to fully consider risk in a comprehensive manner. We provide a review of the current context in which risk is variably defined, and recommend use of the general paradigm where risk is the product of both the likelihood and the potential impacts of wildland fire. We then synthesize research related to wildland fire risk from the Canadian scientific literature. With this review, we aim to provide a better understanding of research challenges, limitations, and opportunities for future work on fire risk within the country.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.007 |
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 it