MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Climate Crisis and Wildfire: A Call for Environmental Assessment and Policy Formulation Prioritizing Indigenous Knowledge

2024· article· en· W4408460298 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ferdous Farhana Huq, Mina Bahador

Bibliographic record

VenueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and Policy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and Beyond
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousClimate changeEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental crisisTraditional knowledgeEnvironmental planningCrisis responsePolitical scienceGeographyEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental ethicsPublic relationsEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canada has a longstanding history of wildfires caused by natural and human factors across provinces. While continuous monitoring has reduced human-triggered fires, the overall wildfire counts increases yearly. The 2023 wildfire was notably destructive, setting records for its scale, duration, and impact. This trend worsens due to rising temperatures, dry conditions, reduced vegetation moisture, droughts, and climate change. Canada's Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) recognizes climate change indicators but lacks clear guidance on addressing wildfires, notably in fire-prone regions. Indigenous communities bear the brunt of wildfires and possess invaluable forest management knowledge that must be integrated into contemporary strategies before they are lost. Proper collaboration with indigenous people and concerned efforts to mitigate climate change offer hope in reducing future wildfire devastation and alleviate the environmental and societal impacts of wildfires.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.023
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.316
Threshold uncertainty score0.629

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.023
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0060.014
Scholarly communication0.0140.014
Open science0.0040.011
Research integrity0.0090.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.309
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; 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRural Review Ontario Rural Planning Development and PolicySame topicEnvironmental and Cultural Studies in Latin America and BeyondFrench-language works237,207