MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4417407371 · doi:10.3997/2214-4609.202533021

Boreal Forest Fires Recorded in 3000 Yrs Arctic Delta Sediments

2025· article· en· W4417407371 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fatemeh Ajallooeian, Lisa Bröder, Sandra O. Brugger, Matt O’Regan, Lukas Biggler, Nina Davtian, Joan Villanueva, Oliver Heiri, Negar Haghipour, Julie Lattaud

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTaigaDeltaArcticBorealThe arcticPermafrost

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Boreal forest fires are an important component of the vegetation and carbon dynamics in the Arctic. Increased temperature triggered by anthropogenic climate change is intensifying the number and scale of spring and summer boreal fires. High resolution sedimentary archives hold the key to reconstruct reliable records of past biomass burning. We studied a 3 m-long piston core, and its corresponding multicore, located in the Beaufort Sea, in front of the Mackenzie River mouth (Arctic Canada). The core captures a 3000-yrs history of discharge from the Mackenzie River catchment and eolian input. Biomass-burning biomarkers (benzene polycarboxylic acids, BPCA1, and levoglucosan2,3, created during low-temperature biomass-burning) as well as microscopic charcoal (larger than 10 µm)4,5 were quantified to reconstruct past variation in boreal fires. They are linked to changes in vegetation reconstructed using pollen and biomarkers (lignin phenols). The combined information from multiple biomass burning proxies provide a unique late Holocene record of boreal fire activity in Arctic Canada, recording climatic events such as the Little Ice Age.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.133
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.220
Teacher spread0.216 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→