Increasing fire and logging disturbances in Siberian boreal forests: a case study of the Angara region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Forest disturbances are a critical environmental issue globally and within the boreal biome, yet detailed attribution and trends in disturbances are lacking for many Siberian regions. The Angara region located in the southern taiga of Central Siberia has experienced significant disturbances during the past several decades and is a hotspot of change in Eurasia. Here we estimated fire and logging disturbances using MODIS and Landsat data for the period 2002–2020 across the Angara region and analyzed the resulting trends. Average annual burned and logged area was about 220 and 31 thousand ha or 2 and 0.3% of the study area, respectively. In total, about 4.1 million ha (38% of the region) and 0.6 million ha (6% of the region) were disturbed by fires and logging, respectively. Spatial analysis showed that almost 50% of fires were ignited within 2 km of anthropogenic features such as settlements, roads and logged areas. Almost 5% of the Angara region was burned two or more times during the 19 years of observations. Improved and strictly-enforced conservation and management policies are required to halt continued forest degradation in the Angara region and similarly-affected boreal forests in Siberia.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".