MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283164842 · doi:10.1186/s13595-022-01144-w

The Alberta Wildland Fuels Inventory Program (AWFIP): data description and reference tables

2022· article· en· W4283164842 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Nathan Phelps, Hilary Cameron, Air M. Forbes, Tom Schiks, Dave Schroeder, Jennifer L. Beverly

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Forest Science · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsAgriculture Food and Rural DevelopmentUniversity of Alberta
FundersAlberta Agriculture and Forestry
KeywordsMetadataUnderstorySampling (signal processing)Environmental scienceField (mathematics)Computer scienceDatabaseCanopyRemote sensingGeographyWorld Wide WebArchaeologyMathematicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Key message This document describes a dataset obtained from a field sampling program conducted in Alberta, Canada. Field data were used to describe the structure and composition of forest stands, including several fuel loads (e.g., surface, understory, canopy fuels). The dataset can be downloaded from https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/FZ8E4 and metadata is available at https://metadata-afs.nancy.inra.fr/geonetwork/srv/fre/catalog.search#/metadata/527efb49-43b4-43eb-88b2-70535ff99fc5 Abstract We present a quality-checked and curated dataset obtained from a field sampling program conducted in the province of Alberta, Canada. Field data were used to describe the structure and composition of forest stands documented in 476 sampling events. Each sampling event record consists of 42 different variables, including several fuel loads (e.g., surface, understory, canopy fuels). The dataset has been created for operational and research applications including but not limited to fuel classification, estimation of fuel attributes from remote sensing technologies, fuel treatment planning, fire behavior prediction, and use in high resolution fire growth models.

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)0.003
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 score0.399
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.297
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Forest ScienceSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207