Evaluating the 3-m tree crown spacing guideline for the prevention of crowning wildfires in lodgepole pine forests, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A 3-m between crown spacing is a commonly cited criterion found in the wildland-urban interface fire literature for minimizing the likelihood of a fully-developed crown fire from occurring in a conifer forest on level terrain. The validity of this general recommendation is examined here in light of our current state-of-knowledge regarding crown fire propagation in relation to canopy bulk density. Given the characteristics of the overstory structure for 20 lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl. ex Loud. var. latifolia Engelm.) stands located in Alberta, as sourced from the literature, the canopy fuel properties following a virtual thinning to a 3-m crown spacing and then to a targeted canopy bulk density of 0.05 kg/m3 were computed. On the basis of these computations, crown fire potential was then analyzed and interpreted. The conclusion reached is that, in the majority of cases, a less widely spaced stand would be adequate for preventing crown fire development in lodgepole pine forests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".