Mapping organic layer thickness and fuel load of the boreal forest in Alberta, Canada
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest organic layers are important soil carbon pools that can, in the absence of disturbance, accumulate to great depths, especially in lowland areas. Across the Canadian boreal forest, fire is the primary disturbance agent, often limiting organic layer accumulation through the direct consumption of these fuels. Organic layer thickness (OLT) and fuel load (OLFL) are common physical attributes used to characterize these layers, especially for wildland fire science. Understanding the drivers and spatial distribution of these attributes is important to improve predictions of fire behaviour, emissions and effects models. We developed maps of OLT and OLFL using machine learning approaches (weighted K-nearest neighbour and random forests) for the forested region of the province of Alberta, Canada (538, 058 km2). The random forests approach was found to be the best approach to model the spatial distribution of these forest floor attributes. A databased of 3, 237 OLT and 594 OLFL plots were used to train the models. The error in our final model, particularly for OLT (5 cm), was relatively close to the variability we would expect to find naturally (3 cm). The dominant tree species was the most important covariate in the models. Age, solar radiation, spatial location, climate variables and surficial geology were also important drivers, although their level of importance varied between tree species and depended on the modelling method that was used.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it