MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4313826503 · doi:10.3390/fire6010018

Post-Fire Natural Regeneration Trends in Bolivia: 2001–2021

2023· article· en· W4313826503 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Oswaldo Maillard

Bibliographic record

VenueFire · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGovernment of Canada
KeywordsNormalized Difference Vegetation IndexGeographyVegetation (pathology)ForestryLand coverVegetation coverPhysical geographyHectareTrend analysisLand useEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental protectionEcologyClimate changeAgricultureBiologyArchaeologyMathematicsStatisticsMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the last 21 years, Bolivia has recorded a series of thousands of wildfires that impacted an area of 24 million hectares, mainly in the departments of Beni and Santa Cruz. In this sense, identifying trends in the increase of natural vegetation after wildfires is a fundamental step in implementing strategies and public policies to ensure ecosystem recovery. The main objective of this study was to evaluate the spatial trends of the increase and decrease in vegetation affected by wildfires for the whole of Bolivia, for the period 2001–2021, using non-parametric tests, through the analysis of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI) remote sensing products. The results indicated that 53.6% of the area showed an increasing trend (p < 0.05) and 15.9% of the area showed a decreasing trend (p < 0.05). In terms of land cover type, forests were proportionally represented by 18.1% of the areas that showed an increasing trend (p < 0.05) and 3.0% of the forests showed a decreasing trend (p < 0.05). In contrast, non-forested areas showed an increasing trend of 35.5% and 12.9% showed a decreasing trend (p < 0.05). It can be concluded that there is a continuous regeneration process throughout the country.

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)0.001
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 score0.089
Threshold uncertainty score0.177

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.218 · 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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFireSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207