MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4289667191 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2021-0353

Identifying and analyzing spatial and temporal patterns of lightning-ignited wildfires in Western Canada from 1981 to 2018

2022· article· en· W4289667191 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Olivia Aftergood, Mike Flannigan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers UniversityUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLightning (connector)GeographyPhysical geographyCluster (spacecraft)Lightning detectionCluster analysisEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyThunderstormStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To assess wildfire risk linked to lightning-caused wildfires, the present study tests the spatial- and temporal-scale distribution variability of lightning fires in Western Canada between 1981 and 2018. We examined clustering, trends, distances between clusters, and the fire season. For this study, the nearest neighbours, K-function, Moran's I, Mann–Kendall, and the Getis-ord Gi* statistics were used. These statistics were visualized by a Space Time Cube model with a hexagon grid. Lightning-ignited wildfires cluster spatially up to 270 km with an observed overall nonsignificant decreasing trend for the number of fires. Overall, northeastern Alberta, central Saskatchewan, and southeastern British Columbia show clustering of lightning fires. In June, there is significant clustering in northwestern and eastern Alberta, while in July fires cluster in northeastern Alberta and in southeastern British Columbia. In August, fire clusters occurred only in southeastern and south-central British Columbia. These results highlight regions that are experiencing persistent lightning fire clustering activity. This provides a focal point to assess wildfire risk to communities and values at risk, while informing local and regional management agencies in preparedness, resource capacity management, and detection. Additionally, it provides a baseline for future research into biophysical modelling of wildfire initiations.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.096

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations26
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207