Overview of Researches on Bush Fires for Natural Resources and Environmental Management in Ghana: A Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research in the world, and more specifically in Africa, on various subjects requires knowledge of previous work from several angles in order to orientate possible research. Thus, the literature review is considered the most suitable approach to have a more complete idea of the innovations or studies carried out on varied topics. To this end, on the issues of vegetal cover protection, environmental management and wildland fire in Ghana, we have adopted this review approach to identify the works already done in Ghana on wildland fire, the methodologies and angles that studies approached their objectives. This paper aims to review and provide a comprehensive report on research works done on the vulnerable vegetation of Ghana by bush fires. Thus, studies published from 1940 to 2021 were extracted from Research Gate, Google Scholar and Google and other indexed journal sites such as Scopus journals using a defined selection criterion. A total of 136 documents: these include reports of international organisations and relevant articles extracted. However, 52 of them were used for this review to better understand their approach and to highlight research gaps that could make those researches innovative. It is noted that most of the research done in Ghana on wildland fire analysis has little or no consideration for the influence of climatic and environmental parameters on understanding wildland fire behaviour, though some respondents from some research show their awareness of the role these parameters play on the fire propagation. However, it should be noted that the majority of studies have focused more on sociological and economic aspects. This observation thus reflects gaps in areas regarding the roles of climatic and environmental parameters in different ecological conditions to better assess the behaviour of wildfires in Ghana.
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 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 | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".