MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3007005249 · doi:10.1071/wf19129

Seasonality and trends in human- and lightning-caused wildfires ≥ 2 ha in Canada, 1959–2018

2020· article· en· W3007005249 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sean C. P. Coogan, Xinli Cai, Piyush Jain, Mike Flannigan

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Wildland Fire · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLightning (connector)BorealTaigaGeographySeasonalityEnvironmental scienceClimatologyPhysical geographyMontane ecologyEcologyArchaeologyForestryGeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We examined the seasonal distribution of lightning- and human-caused wildfires ≥ 2 ha in Canada for two time periods: 1959–2018 and 1981–2018. Furthermore, we investigated trends in seasonality, number of fires per year and number of days with fire starts per year for human- and lightning-caused fires. Nationally, lightning fires peaked from June to August, whereas human fires peaked during May. There was, however, notable variation in the seasonal distributions of human- and lightning-caused fires between ecozones. Likewise, trends in season start and end dates varied among ecozones and time series, with trends generally being stronger for human-caused fires. Trends in the number of fires from 1959 to 2018 suggested significant increases in the number of lightning-caused fires and days with lightning ignitions across almost all ecozones, while from 1981 to 2018 there was a significantly decreasing trend in the number of human-caused fires and days with human ignitions in almost all ecozones. The highest densities of human-caused fires occurred in the Montane Cordillera and Atlantic Maritime, while the highest density of lightning-caused fires occurred in the Boreal Shield West. The Montane Cordillera and Taiga Shield West showed significant increases in the number of lightning fires and days with lightning ignitions across both time series.

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 score0.183
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations78
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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