MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3213374815 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2021-0207

Beyond pre-Columbian burning: the impact of firewood collection on forest fuel loads

2021· article· en· W3213374815 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Scott H. Markwith, Asha Paudel

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFirewoodBiomass (ecology)Wood fuelEnvironmental scienceRange (aeronautics)GeographyEnvironmental protectionAgroforestryEcologyArchaeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Government agencies in the United States (US) adopted a prescribed burning policy based in part on paleo-environmental evidence of pre-Columbian Native American burning regimes. However, biomass collection by Native Americans in the pre-Columbian era left little direct or indirect evidence of its magnitude or influence on fire regimes. In many developing countries, local peoples harvest biomass for shelter, tool production, cooking, and heating, and often manage forests communally. The objective of this study was to use modern proxy biomass collection estimates analogous to pre-Columbian era practices in the western US to estimate the potential impacts of regionwide firewood collection on fuel loads in the Sierra Nevada range of California. A minimum of 59% of the forested area of the Sierra Nevada range could have been completely stripped of surface fuel accumulation in the 100-hour (100 h) fuel moisture class (2.54–7.62 cm diameter) each year in the pre-Columbian era, but upper estimates suggest Native American fuelwood requirements may have exceeded the amount of 100-h surface fuels accumulated over the entire range each year. The collection and removal of the fuels from the surface fuel loads may have contributed to reduced fire severities over that era. Dead wood collection in Nepal and India was found to reduce the threat of forest fires. Including the effects of cultural practices on fuel loads may improve reconstructions of past fuel and fire regimes and may benefit modern management strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.492
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.274 · 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

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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