MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414944720 · doi:10.1139/cjfr-2025-0209

Fire regime changes in Canada: an update

2025· article· en· W4414944720 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Chelene C. Hanes, Piyush Jain, Weiwei Wang, Xianli Wang, Marc‐André Parisien, John M. Little, Mike Flannigan

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicDisaster Management and Resilience
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaThompson Rivers UniversityAlberta Ministry of Agriculture and ForestryOntario Forest Research InstituteCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClimate changeTrend analysisFire regimeFire historyVegetation (pathology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Given the recent rise in extreme fires, we present an update to a previous Canadian wildfire trend analysis (1959–2015) with nine additional years of data (2016–2024), an improved area burned dataset, a refined trend analysis method, and a greater geographical coverage of the country. Overall, the big-picture trends remain consistent: annual area burned, the annual number and size of large fires are still increasing, while fires of all sizes continue to decline. The most significant and consistent changes include greater fire activity in the Cordillera and Plains ecozones in the west, while increasing or flat trends in annual area burned are now evident in all ecozones. Very large fires (≥20 000 ha) are getting larger and account for a greater proportion of area burned. In contrast to the preceding analysis, human-caused fires, which were previously detected as decreasing in annual area burned, have now been increasing with high confidence since the mid-2000s.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.047
Threshold uncertainty score0.339

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0170.032
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 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

Citations5
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicDisaster Management and ResilienceFrench-language works237,207