MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3152553725 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2020-0454

Prescribed fire shrub consumption in a Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forest

2021· article· en· W3152553725 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Melissa R. Jaffe, Brandon M. Collins, Jacob I. Levine, Hudson Northrop, Francesco Malandra, Daniel Krofcheck, Matthew D. Hurteau, Scott L. Stephens, Malcolm P. North

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCalifornia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection
KeywordsShrubForestryEnvironmental scienceWoody plantVegetation (pathology)GeographyPrescribed burnEcologyAgroforestryBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Live shrubs in forest understories pose a challenge for mitigating wildfire risk with prescribed fire. Factors driving shrub consumption in prescribed fires are variable and difficult to explain. This study investigated spatial patterns and drivers of Sierra Nevada mixed-conifer forest shrub consumption in prescribed fires through analysis of high-resolution imagery taken before and after prescribed fire. We applied a spatially explicit, generalized additive model to assess tree cover and coarse woody material as potential drivers of shrub consumption. Shrub cover in two experimental stands prior to burning was 38% and 59% and was 36% and 45% one-year post-burn. In both stands shrub patch density increased, while area-weighted mean patch size and largest patch index decreased. Increased local percent cover of coarse woody material was associated with increased shrub consumption. These findings provide information for prescribed fire managers to help better anticipate shrub consumption and patchiness outcomes under similar conditions.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.220
Threshold uncertainty score0.438

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.250 · 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

Citations5
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest Research→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→