Guiding principles for transdisciplinary and transformative fire research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Managing landscape fire is a complex challenge because it is simultaneously necessary for, and increasingly poses a risk to, societies and ecosystems worldwide. This challenge underscores the need for transformative change in the way societies live with and manage fire. While researchers have the potential to act as agents of transformative change, in practice, the ability to affect change is often constrained by siloed and biased expertise, rigid decision-making institutions, and increasingly vulnerable social-ecological systems where urgent rather than long-term solutions are prioritized. Addressing these challenges requires more holistic and equitable approaches to fire research that promote new models of transdisciplinary thinking, collaboration, and practice. Results To advance transformative solutions to this complex fire challenge, we propose four principles for conducting transdisciplinary fire research: (1) embrace complexity, (2) promote diverse ways of knowing fire, (3) foster transformative learning, and (4) practice problem-centered research. These principles emerged from our experience as a group of early-career researchers who are embedded within and motivated by today’s complex fire challenge within British Columbia (BC), Canada. In this forum piece, we first describe the four principles and then apply the principles to two case studies: (1) BC, a settler-colonial context experiencing increased size, severity, and impacts of wildfires, and (2) our ECR discussion group, a space of collective learning and transformation. In doing so, we present a unique contribution that builds on existing efforts to develop more holistic fire research frameworks and demonstrates how application of these principles can promote transdisciplinary research and transformation towards coexistence with fire, from local to global scales. Conclusions In this forum piece, we identify and apply four guiding principles for transdisciplinary fire research. Collectively, these principles can foster more inclusive applied fire research that matches the scope and scale of today’s fire challenge and promotes transformative change towards coexisting with fire.
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 | 0.195 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.074 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.020 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.006 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".