MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6950420537 · doi:10.5683/sp3/owk1ne

Burn-P3 modelling of fire behaivour on Rose Swanson Mountain, British Columbia before and after harvesting

2022· dataset· en· W6950420537 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueBorealis · 2022
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRose (mathematics)LoggingMean valueProbability distributionDouglas firHydrology (agriculture)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

It has been long known that wildfire and harvesting can have a relationship. However, this relationship is not straightforward and well understood. In this paper, we hope to quantify the impact of proposed harvesting on the wildfire severity and probability on Rose Swanson Mountain. Rose Swanson Mountain is a small mountain in South Central BC near the town of Armstrong used by the locals for its bountiful outdoor recreation. In early 2020 British Columbia Timber Sales added part of the Rose Swanson Mountain Sensitive Area to its list of soon-to-be harvested areas. This paper illustrates the research done in BurnP3 and ArcPro to simulate and measure fire in a pre and post logged Rose Swanson. After 5,000 iterations of the BurnP3 model using the pre-logging fuel type data, the fire probability ranged from 0% to 49.7%, with a mean probability of 6.45% across the landscape. After 5000 iterations of the BurnP3 model using post logging fuel types on Rose Swanson, the burn probability ranged from 0-49.34%, with a mean of 6.43% across Rose Swanson Mountain. This indicated the fire probability across the mountain and little increase as a whole. However, an apparent increase in fire probability was present in the close vicinity to the logged areas. Additionally, the pre-logged average fire intensity values on Rose Swanson ranged from 0 to 60,599 kW/m with a mean value of 2,841 kW/m, while the post-logged ranged from 0 to 122,849 KW/m with a mean of 3,183 kW/m. This difference was clear in the maps produced by BurnP3. While the results were insightful, many limitations were noted, including poor fuel type accuracy, limited model run count, and low-resolution data. The research offers valuable insight into the wildfire and harvesting relationship and sets the toon for further research.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.322

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBorealisFrench-language works237,207