A case-study of wildland fire management knowledge exchange: the barriers and facilitators in the development and integration of the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Among the most successful examples of Knowledge Exchange (KE) between researchers and practitioners in Canadian wildland fire management is the development and integration of the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (CFFDRS) into operational use. Aims Our aim was to identify key factors for this success. Methods Through a case study, we investigated historical KE of two CFFDRS components in Ontario, Canada. We held semi-structured interviews with principal Canadian Forest Service researchers and Ontario fire management practitioners active in development and implementation of CFFDRS from the late 1960s to 2010s. Key results The importance of both formal and informal facilitators to support KE was emphasised. Conclusion Participants were most likely to associate successful implementation with informal facilitators such as personal relationships, shared field-based experiences, and opportunities for dialogue between researchers and practitioners. Critical to success were the credibility and soft skills of the knowledge brokers, early engagement, and consideration of training needs for end users in the design of products. Implications This identification of factors that facilitated or hindered the development and implementation of CFFDRS can enhance the impact of research that will help wildland fire management deal with its present and future challenges.
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 | 0.007 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.021 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".