MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6998871271

Assessing private land fuel management treatments in the wildland urban interface of British Columbia's southern interior

2019· article· en· W6998871271 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network) · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWildland–urban interfaceWork (physics)Land managementHazardFire hazardPrescribed burnLand useSettlement (finance)
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The problems of fire in areas where forest and infrastructure meet (the wildland urban interface) are becoming better understood as a mounting body of research grows against the backdrop of climate change, forest fuel build-up and the expansion of human settlement into rural areas. The Province of British Columbia has a history of catastrophic wildland fires. Following the events of the 2003 fire season, fuel management emerged as a key recommendation to mitigate the risk of wildland fire in rural areas. Although the overall effectiveness of the Provincial fuel management strategy will continue to be the subject of debate, there is consensus that at-risk private landowners need to take responsibility for their safety. Fuel management on Crown land can provide a model for landowners to implement mitigation strategies on their own properties, but are homeowners using that model? This study investigated if homeowners in wildland urban interface areas within the Kamloops Fire Zone of British Columbia are using adjacent Crown land fuel management treatments as a template for conducting mitigation work on their own property. This was accomplished using a two-part study. The first part of the study involved an in situ measurement of Crown and private land parcels using hazard assessment criteria modified from FireSmart Canada. Hazard assessment scores of fuel-managed public lands and adjacent private lands were similar, suggesting that private land owners were reproducing mitigation measures on their own properties. Fuel management reduced the hazard assessment scores of crown and private lands in the areas studied and there was variability in fuel management treatments. The second component of the study involved a mail-out survey to wildland urban interface residents to support the findings of part one and gain a better understanding of the human dimension of fuel management treatments by clarifying the motives, trends and obstacles that may be in place. Residents of the wildland urban interface were aware of the risk of wildland fire impacting their communities. Most residents were familiar with the FireSmart program. Education continues to be an important component of any forest fuel mitigation effort and residents in fuel managed areas generally felt a greater sense of community than those residing in untreated areas.

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)0.002
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.112

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.003
GPT teacher head0.183
Teacher spread0.180 · 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
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArca (British Columbia Electronic Library Network)Same topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207