Preventing wildfires with fire permits in rural Edson, Alberta
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Fire used for agriculture has many benefits, but can cause wildfires if prevention activities are unsuccessful. Aims The aim of this study was to examine fire permit use and safe burning practices by rural residents in the Edson Forest Area, Alberta, Canada. Methods In total, 269 rural landowners completed a mail survey designed to identify how they use fire, their awareness of wildfire risk, fire experience, fire permit use and safe burning practices. Key results Most respondents used fire on their property, and all were aware of the local wildfire risk, but there was little recognition that using fire for agricultural purposes contributes to wildfires in the area. Many respondents were taking steps to prevent a fire from escaping, but some used fire without obtaining a permit. Those who had seen a wildfire in the Edson Forest Area were more likely to take measures to prevent a wildfire from escaping, and more likely to apply for a fire permit. Conclusions This research contributes to knowledge about rural landowners’ fire use, wildfire prevention activities and fire permit use. Implications Future research should confirm how wildfire experience affects fire permit use and safe use of fire by rural residents.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".