MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406885178 · doi:10.1007/s13280-024-02105-5

In this current wildfire crisis, acknowledge widespread suffering

2025· review· en· W4406885178 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fiona E. Newman Thacker, Kathleen Uyttewaal, Tomás Quiñones, Rik Leemans, Bethany Hannah, Cathelijne R. Stoof

Bibliographic record

VenueAMBIO · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersH2020 Marie Skłodowska-Curie ActionsEuropean Commission
KeywordsAdaptation (eye)Climate changeGeographyExtreme weatherResource (disambiguation)Environmental resource managementScale (ratio)PsychologyEcologyEnvironmental scienceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

With climate change causing more extreme weather events globally, climate scientists have argued that societies have three options: mitigation, adaptation or suffering. In recent years, devastating wildfires have caused significant suffering, yet the extent of this suffering has not been defined. To encapsulate this suffering, we determined impacts and effects of extreme wildfires through two systematic literature reviews. Six common themes of wildfire suffering emerged: environmental, social, physical, mental, cultural and resource suffering. These themes varied in scale: from local to regional; from individuals to communities; and from ecosystems to landscapes. We then applied these themes in the Las Maquinas (Chile) and Fort McMurray (Canada) wildfires. This highlighted several adaptation strategies that can reduce suffering, however our exploration indicates these strategies must address social and ecological factors. This analysis concludes that suffering from wildfires is diverse and widespread, and that significant engagement with adaptation strategies is needed if this is going to decrease.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.871
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.009

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.295 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAMBIOSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207