MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4379742456 · doi:10.5902/1980509870195

Variabilidade espaço-temporal de ocorrência e recorrência de fogo no Bioma Caatinga usando dados do sensor MODIS

2023· article· pt· W4379742456 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Amanda Cavalcante da Silva, Ronie Silva Juvanhol, Jonathan da Rocha Miranda

Bibliographic record

VenueCiência Florestal · 2023
Typearticle
Languagept
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversidade Federal do Piauí
KeywordsBiologyGeographyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

O uso do fogo de forma indiscriminada, a cada ano vem causando um desequilíbrio na natureza, que pode ser percebido em âmbito global. O sensoriamento remoto, representa a principal alternativa tecnológica na detecção, dimensionamento e na compreensão da dinâmica do fogo. Assim, o objetivo desse estudo foi analisar a distribuição espaço-temporal das áreas queimadas do Bioma Caatinga por meio do produto MODIS MCD64A1, no período de 2001 a 2018. Para isso, foram utilizados os subconjuntos mensais do produto Burned Area MCD64A1. Adotou-se também a classificação do Canadian Forest Service, no qual define as áreas queimadas em cinco classes diferentes: I (0-0,09 ha); II (0,1-4,0 ha); III (4,1-40,0 ha); IV (40,1-200,0 ha); V(>200,0 ha). Os resultados alcançados nesse estudo revelam que o estado do Piauí apresenta estatisticamente maior média de ocorrências de incêndios e área queimada na série temporal. Os meses que tiveram as maiores áreas queimadas no bioma foram setembro, agosto e outubro e maior recorrência de maio a dezembro. As classes de tamanho de área queimada que apresentaram maiores ocorrências foram III, IV e V. O bioma sofre sistemático crescimento de degradação, o que potencializa sua fragilidade ante ao fogo.

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 score0.132
Threshold uncertainty score0.263

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCiência FlorestalSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207