MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410109682 · doi:10.59297/zfwqed06

Case studies of Wildfire Evacuations in Canada Between 2020 and 2023 Using Publicly Available Sources

2025· article· en· W4410109682 on OpenAlexaffabout
Maxine Berthiaume, Max Kinateder, Noureddine Bénichou

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the ... International ISCRAM Conference · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An increasing number of communities are affected by wildfires in the wildland-urban interface (WUI) in Canada. While statistical information about wildfire evacuations in Canada is available, systematic descriptions of individual incidents are rare. However, case studies can be useful to illustrate and understand aspects unique to affected communities. Using an established reporting template, this paper provides an overview of five case studies that led to community evacuations across Canada between January 2020 and August 2023: (1) the White Rock Lake wildfire in 2021 (British Columbia), (2) the Edson Forest Area wildfire in 2023 (Alberta), (3) the Lebel-sur-Quévillon wildfire in 2023 (Québec), (4) the Tantallon wildfire in 2023 (Nova Scotia), and (5) the Behchokǫ̀-Yellowknife wildfire in 2023 (Northwest Territories). Information from publicly available resources was used to describe the communities, environmental conditions, incidents and evacuation. Information gaps where no data was publicly accessible are also highlighted. The case studies suggest that communities faced several challenges during the wildfire evacuations, most commonly related to communication. The case studies help better understand the context in which wildfire evacuations occur and how communities respond and manage wildfire evacuations in Canada.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.292
Threshold uncertainty score0.630

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the ... International ISCRAM ConferenceSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207