MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6904840336 · doi:10.14288/1.0406182

Quasi-experimental methods for wildfire impact quantification : applications of distance-adjusted propensity score matching to forest inventory data

2022· article· en· W6904840336 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenuecIRcle (University of British Columbia) · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCovariatePropensity score matchingForest inventoryMatching (statistics)Sample (material)Spatial ecologySpatial analysisRandom forest

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Quantifying wildfire impacts on forest ecosystems is challenging due to the lack of pre-fire data or controls from experiments over a large landscape. Quasi-experimental methods have been popular in various fields of science where experiments are difficult to implement. However, the application of quasi-experimental methods to ecological data have not yet been fully explored. In this dissertation, I applied quasi-experimental methods to quantify wildfire impacts on aboveground forest woody carbon mass using national forest inventory data from the United States of America (USA) and British Columbia (BC), Canada. First, I compared distance-adjusted propensity score matching (DAPSM) with propensity score matching (PSM) and spatial matching (SM) to quantify the changes in forest woody carbon mass due to wildfires in Washington and Oregon, USA. Incorporating spatial information in addition to environmental covariates was essential to account for both observed and unobserved environmental covariates in matching. Thus, DAPSM was favored over PSM and SM. Second, I conducted a sensitivity analysis on the performance of DAPSM with different data availability to provide a practical guide of sample size and environmental covariates required to quantify wildfire impacts. I found that the inclusion of the spatial distance compensated for the omission of key covariates, but this compensation was not effective for small sample sizes. Third, I applied DAPSM with and without replacement to three datasets with small sample sizes collected for case-studies of wildfire impacts in south-central BC. DAPSM with replacement using BC forest inventory plot data enabled balancing the environmental covariates between burned and control plots under certain circumstances. The controls produced by DAPSM captured the trends in the amount of woody carbon masses under different fire severities, implying that they may replace the pre-burn data once the propensity scores are adequately addressed. Overall, the implementation of DAPSM allowed the assessment of wildfire impacts on forest carbon by building a causal relationship from observational forest inventory data. Based on applied examples, this dissertation provides guidelines for employing propensity score matching to quantify the impacts of natural disturbances. This research contributes to future studies considering quasi-experimental approaches for analyzing ecological data where controlled experiments are impossible.

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)0.252
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.450
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.252
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2520.450
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.005
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0060.005
Research integrity0.0040.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0090.001

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

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
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuecIRcle (University of British Columbia)→Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→