MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7028408174

Fire deficit around Canadian boreal communities - source data

2020· other· en· W7028408174 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBorealTaigaLand coverVegetation (pathology)Boundary (topology)Grid cellSatellite imageryDisturbance (geology)Data source
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

These are the source files used in Parisien et al. (2020) “Fire deficit increases wildfire risk for many communities in the Canadian boreal forest”. These files will allow the user to recreate the results of the study. - The study area boundary was defined by a selection of the Ecological zones of Canada (Ecological_zones_studyarea.zip). - Fire-regime zones are from Erni et al. (2020) (FRT_Canada_studyarea.zip). - Vegetation cover is based on the National FBP fuels grid version (2014b) (Beaudoin et al. 2014) (National_FBP_Fueltypes_version2014b.zip). - Community points are based on Natural Resources Canada 2010 Populated Places dataset, hand-corrected using aerial imagery (Boreal_communities_160.zip). - Fire polygons are based on the National Burned Area Composite 'NBAC' for 2002-2017 (NBAC_2002_2017.zip) and the National Fire Database 'NFDB' for 1978-2001 (NFDB_1978_2001.zip). - Fire ignition points are based on the National Fire Database 'NFDB' for 1988-2017 (NFDB_ignitions_1988_2017.zip). - Harvest sensitivity analysis is based on Canada Landsat Disturbance (CanLAD) dataset (Guindon et al., 2018) (CanLaD_2011cutblocks.zip). - Land cover sensitivity analysis is based on 2019 National Risk Analysis Fuels Map (Natoinal_Risk_Fuels_2019.zip) and 2011 MODIS Land Cover map (MODIS_Landcover_2011.zip). Statistics calculated in the paper include: percentage of recently burned forest (RBF) for 1978-2007, 1988-2017, and 1998-2017; ignition density for human- and lightning-caused fires; and percentage of area harvested 1985-2015 (Guindon et al., 2018). Datasets are periodically updated an may vary from the version provided here. Versions available here were last accessed: Oct. 2018 (NBAC, Bing Maps), June 7, 2019 (NFDB, 2014 Fuels, 2011 MODIS Land Cover), Dec. 2018 (2019 Fuels), and Nov. 2018 (Ecozones, Fire Regime Zones, and Community shapefiles). Works cited here: Beaudoin, A., P. Y. Bernier, L. Guindon, P. Villemaire, X. J. Guo, G. Stinson, T. Bergeron, S. Magnussen, and R. J. Hall. 2014. Mapping attributes of Canada’s forests at moderate resolution through kNN and MODIS imagery. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 44:521-532. Erni, S., Wang, X., Taylor, S., Boulanger, Y., Swystun, T., Flannigan, M., & Parisien, M. A. (2020). Developing a two-level fire regime zonation system for Canada. Canadian Journal of Forest Research, 50(999), 259-273. Guindon, L., Bernier, P., Gauthier, S., Stinson, G., Villemaire, P., & Beaudoin, A. (2018). Missing forest cover gains in boreal forests explained. Ecosphere, 9(1), e02094.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.153

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.010
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.265
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designNot applicable
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
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)→French-language works237,207→