MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414026742 · doi:10.1002/ecs2.70385

Climate, topography, or fuels? Top‐down versus bottom‐up controls on fire refugia across British Columbia, Canada

2025· article· en· W4414026742 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Christine E. Kuntzemann, Ellen Whitman, Doug Lewis, Diana Stralberg

Bibliographic record

VenueEcosphere · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaMinistry of ForestsGovernment of British ColumbiaNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceWilburforce Foundation
KeywordsTop-down and bottom-up designClimate changeGeographyEnvironmental scienceEcologyPhysical geographyGeologyBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Surviving pockets of vegetation within fire perimeters, termed fire refugia, are an important component of ecological recovery following disturbance. Understanding the relative influence of the drivers of fire refugia throughout diverse landscapes and climate conditions can help identify areas that are conducive to their formation. We investigated the role of various top‐down (climate) and bottom‐up (fuels, physical setting) controls on fire refugia creation throughout 21 unique fire regime units in the forests of British Columbia, Canada, over a 20‐year (2000–2019) period. Boosted regression tree models were used to determine the relative influence of each of these controls and their associated variables on fire refugia, as well as to create predictive maps of fire refugia probabilities over a range of annual climate conditions. We found that the bottom‐up controls, particularly variables relating to physical setting, generally held the greatest influence on fire refugia creation, though those relating to fuels were of higher importance in the more disturbance‐prone forests of the boreal and central interior regions. These bottom‐up controls, however, can be overwhelmed by extreme climate conditions, which have variable effects on refugia depending on the region. There was an overall positive correspondence between locations of persistent (long‐term) fire refugia and mapped old‐growth, suggesting that strong, static terrain features may shelter some forests over the course of multiple fire events, allowing for the development of old‐growth stands. We concluded that, while strong topographic features confer the strongest measure of protection in some regions of the province, there are many areas in which fuel mitigation tactics (e.g., fuel thinning, prescribed and cultural burning) may be particularly useful for protecting areas of high human or ecological value in the face of increasingly extreme climate conditions. Although our maps can help predict where and when fire refugia may form under provided climatic and environmental conditions, they do not reflect real‐time conditions and are therefore not intended for risk assessment or for operational management.

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 categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.453
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0140.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.214 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcosphereSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207