MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415564763 · doi:10.3390/f16111626

Insights into Forest Composition Effects on Wildland–Urban Interface Wildfire Suppression Expenditures in British Columbia

2025· article· en· W4415564763 on OpenAlexaffabout
Lili Sun

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildland–urban interfaceWildfire suppressionDeciduousClimate changeForest managementPrescribed burnFire protectionFire regime

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Burned area, fire severity, and suppression expenditures have increased in British Columbia in recent decades with climate change. Approximately 80% of suppression expenditures are attributable to wildfires near the Wildland–Urban Interface (WUI). Evaluating the potential for fuel management to reduce suppression expenditures is essential to mitigating demands on fire response resources and reducing impacts on communities. One management approach is to increase the proportion of deciduous tree species, which have a lower propensity for crown fire. Using fire suppression expenditure data from 1981 to 2014, we applied the machine learning method causal forests (CFs) to estimate the effect of the proportion of conifer forest cover on suppression expenditures for WUI fires and how these effects varied with other influential factors (i.e., heterogenous treatment effects). Across all fires, the effect of conifer cover on suppression expenditures was stronger on private land compared to public land, under high fire danger measured by daily severity ratings (DSRs), which reflect wind speed and fuel moisture, and for fires igniting earlier in the calendar year, based on Julian day. These findings provide insights into prioritizing wildland fuel treatment when budgets are limited. The CFs approach demonstrates potential for broader applications in fire risk mitigation and analysis beyond the scope of the current data. CFs may also be valuable in other areas of forest research where heterogenous treatment effects are common.

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 score0.646
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 venueForestsSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207