The Role of International Resource Sharing Arrangements in Managing Fire in the Face of Climate Change
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
Changing global fire regimes including extended fire seasons due to climate change may increase the co-occurrence of high-impact fires that overwhelm national fire suppression capacities. These shifts increase the demand for international resource sharing to supplement national fire suppression efforts. In this paper, we explore the development and evaluate the effectiveness of international resource sharing arrangements of three regions: (1) The United States, Canada, and Australia (“Big Three”); (2) Europe; and (3) Southeast Asia by conducting a literature review of gray and peer- reviewed literature in combination with key informant interviews. For the “Big Three” and Europe, international resource sharing is perceived as necessary, effective, and continuously improving. Converging fire management processes and training and developing more effective administrative procedures facilitate these relationships. In Southeast Asia, political tensions and limited firefighting capacities have hampered effective cooperation. Formalized agreements of country-to-country support for fire management are nascent and evolving, and there is evidence that demand for expanding and improving these partnerships is increasing.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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