Bibliographic record
Abstract
An overarching goal of the International Wildland Fire Conference series is promoting international fire management cooperation. The global fire community has long recognized the factors contributing to steadily increasing wildland fire management problems including climate change-induced increases in fire frequency and severity, increasing fuel loads and landscape flammability, rising populations and expanding distribution of people (the major cause of wildland fire) into flammable environments, increasing fire threat to communities, livelihoods and food security, and escalating fire suppression costs. The global fire community recognizes the critical importance of enhanced international cooperation as a key strategy to mitigate the growing risk (weather and fuels) and threat (human and environmental values at risk) of wildfire globally. Greater international collaboration provides enhanced fire risk reduction capability (prevention) and sharing critical fuel, weather and fire intelligence for readiness (pre suppression) planning. Suppression capacity increased through sharing of expertise and where suitable and appropriate resource-exchange, and suppression effectiveness improved by sharing advances in training, science and technology transfer. Many actors and agencies actively, or potentially can, contribute to greater international collaboration. This study reviewed the current status of global fire cooperation, and compiled ideas to enhance future global exchange of fire management initiatives, through examining documentation of cooperation activities or programs in fire management, by survey and discussions with key individuals and agencies actively involved in international fire management cooperation. International collaboration depends on the commitment of sovereign countries, each with context, opportunities and challenges. Many networks were initiated in the past, but few are active, effective and sustained. Success of efforts in collaboration has been limited and tends to consist of reports, proceedings, guidelines, manuals and other documentation with little evidence of impact and uptake by countries. It would seem that the requirements for a sustained network include articulated need, shared leadership and persistent funding
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.021 | 0.002 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".