MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281962377 · doi:10.3389/frym.2022.734864

How Does Cultural Burning Impact Biodiversity?

2022· article· en· W4281962377 on OpenAlexafffund
Kira M. Hoffman, Amy Cardinal Christianson, Emma L. Davis, Sara Wickham, Andrew J. Trant

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers for Young Minds · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsTula FoundationUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of British ColumbiaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceNational Geographic Society
KeywordsBiodiversityEcosystemIndigenousGeographyEnvironmental resource managementAgroforestryEcologyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Biodiversity is all the different types of life that are found in an area and it plays an important role in keeping ecosystems healthy. Unfortunately, biodiversity is decreasing around the world. Many species of plants and animals are rare and found only in certain ecosystems, which require disturbances, like fire, to stay healthy. Indigenous peoples have used fire as a tool to manage ecosystems for millions of years. This is called cultural burning. To understand how cultural burning impacts biodiversity, our research team conducted a review of over 1,000 scientific papers published globally from 1900 to 2020 (120 years). We assessed where, when, how, and why cultural burning was used to increase or decrease the numbers of certain animals, plants, insects, and even microbes! When cultural burning is used regularly, and under the right conditions, it can support and increase biodiversity and ecosystem health worldwide.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.197 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers for Young MindsSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207