MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4322770071 · doi:10.3390/fire6030096

Occurrence, Area Burned, and Seasonality Trends of Forest Fires in the Natural Subregions of Alberta over 1959–2021

2023· article· en· W4322770071 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. Razu Ahmed, Quazi K. Hassan

Bibliographic record

VenueFire · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of CanadaGovernment of Alberta
KeywordsSeasonalityGeographyBorealTaigaPhysical geographyFire regimeEnvironmental scienceForestryEcologyEcosystemArchaeologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We analyzed the distribution and number of forest fire occurrences, burned areas, and seasonality, and their trends of human- and lightning-caused small (<200 ha) and large (≥200 ha) fires from 1959 to 2021 in the forested 14 subregions of Alberta, based on the Canadian National Fire Database. We applied a non-parametric statistical test, i.e., Mann–Kendall and Sen’s slope estimator, for the patterns and magnitudes of the trends. Our results revealed that all subregions experienced significantly increasing trends of fire occurrences, either monthly or yearly, except the Alpine subregion. In the burned area case, nine ecoregions demonstrated significantly decreasing monthly trends for small fires caused by humans, except for an increasing trend in the Lower Boreal Highlands subregion in May. For seasonality, we found one to two days for both early start and delayed end of fire season, and eventually two to four days longer fire seasons in five ecoregions. This study provides an updated understanding of the fire regimes in Alberta. It would be helpful for fire management agencies to make strategic plans by focusing on high-priority regions to save lives and properties.

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 score0.090
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.225 · 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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFireSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207