MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4225086356 · doi:10.1007/s13253-022-00497-z

A Case-Crossover Study of the Impact of the Modifying Industrial Operations Protocol on the Frequency of Industrial Forestry-Caused Wildland Fires in Ontario, Canada

2022· article· en· W4225086356 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Kevin Granville, Douglas G. Woolford, C. B. Dean, Colin B. McFayden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Agricultural Biological and Environmental Statistics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Energy, Northern Development and MinesUniversity of WaterlooWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaInstitute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
KeywordsChristian ministryProtocol (science)Government (linguistics)ForestryEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementBusinessGeographyPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wildland fire prevention and mitigation is of mutual interest to both government and the forest industry. In 1989, the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources and Forestry introduced the Woods Modification Guidelines that provided rules on how forestry operations should be modified based on local fire danger conditions. Those guidelines were replaced by the Modifying Industrial Operations Protocol (MIOP) in 2008. One objective of MIOP is to allow forestry operations to be done safely for as long as possible as the fire danger increases. We investigate the impacts of these sets of regulations on the frequency of industrial forestry-caused (IDF) wildland fires in the province of Ontario, Canada. Data from 1976 to 2019 are analyzed. A case-crossover study finds no evidence to suggest that MIOP’s greater flexibility in operating hours has increased the probability of IDF fire occurrences. This result indicates that MIOP’s regulations have had the desired effect of allowing longer working hours on days with heightened fire risk without adding to the seasonal wildland fire load.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score0.620

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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 integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Agricultural Biological and Environmental StatisticsSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207