MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4409999460 · doi:10.3390/earth6020032

Perception from a Public Survey of the Social–Ecological Effects of Wildfires in the Chiquitania Region of Bolivia

2025· article· en· W4409999460 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersEuropean CommissionGovernment of Canada
KeywordsPerceptionGeographyEcologySurvey data collectionEnvironmental resource managementPsychologyEnvironmental scienceBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, large-scale wildfires have become a serious threat to terrestrial ecosystems and people in the Chiquitania region of Bolivia. Understanding public perceptions is fundamental to designing comprehensive and effective wildfire management strategies. The objectives of the study were to learn perception on the main causes of wildfires, to understand their perceptions of the impacts of these events, and to explore the most viable solutions to preventing future wildfires in the Chiquitania region of Bolivia. We developed a 15-questions online survey and disseminated it through social media platforms, mobile messaging service groups, and at two workshops held in two locations. A total of 597 people participated in the survey with a balanced sex distribution. The participants were mainly young people aged 18–24 (45.40%) and 25–34 (21.40%), representing university students (42.6%) and professionals (42.6%). The data came from seven departments, but Santa Cruz was more strongly represented (75.9%). In addition, although only 65% considered themselves part of the general population, the data shows that 76% had personal experience of wildfires. Respondents indicated that fires were caused by human activities (95.9%), mainly due to traditional agricultural practices. The most important perceived impacts included landscape and vegetation quality, fauna habitat and ecosystem regeneration. In addition, participants have prioritized the reinforcement of patrols and surveillance, the hiring of forest firefighters and the purchase of aerial firefighting units. For prevention, the most chosen was to change policies that promote fires, changing the vision for economic development and stricter penalties. The findings can be used to formulate public policies aimed at preventing wildfires, mitigating their impacts and promoting environmental conservation.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.229
Teacher spread0.217 · 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