MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Living with wildfire: cultivating a stewardship framework

2025· article· en· W4413445023 on OpenAlex
Maya Daurio

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGlobal Environmental Change · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaColorado Department of Public Health and Environment
KeywordsStewardship (theology)BusinessEnvironmental planningEnvironmental resource managementEnvironmental sciencePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

• Narratives about the wildland urban interface homogenize experiences with wildfire. • We need to expand our idea of geographies of risk associated with wildfire. • People who live in fire adapted landscapes are potential stewards. Place-based stewardship in mountain watersheds can play an important role in responding to and helping to mitigate different kinds of landscape-based hazards, including wildfire and post-fire flooding. In a world with more extreme wildfire, what does it mean to live with fire, where the impacts affect people and places across jurisdictions for many years after the fire itself? Drawing on over two years of ethnographic fieldwork including participant observation and interviews, I explore this question in the particular geographic and land use context of the Poudre Canyon in northern Colorado. Local stewardship practices in mountain communities can benefit populations beyond the fire perimeter. These may be rooted in ongoing relationships to the land, local, volunteer-based hazard mitigation and emergency response, and post-fire collaborative efforts. Using narrative analysis, I examine how landscapes at risk of fire are defined, how wildfire risk is communicated to those living in these landscapes in Colorado, and how discourses of risk and responsibility facilitate or constrain adaptation to living with extreme fire. I encourage an approach to risk communication that conceptualizes those who live in fire adapted landscapes as potential stewards. I also suggest that wildfire risk reduction efforts should be more geographically and socially expansive, to acknowledge that contending with wildfire and its associated hazards of smoke and flooding is a society-wide challenge, not just for those living in fire adapted landscapes. Living with fire is a process, and community members, practitioners, and scientists alike are reorienting toward a world with more extreme wildfire.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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)0.0010.001

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.212 · 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