MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W7096479316

Dear Interested Party:

2006· article· en· W7096479316 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRecreationSalvage loggingEnvironmental impact statementAction planPlan (archaeology)Action (physics)Dead tree
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been completed for School Fire Salvage Recovery Project. The project planning area is approximately 28,000 acres and is located in Columbia and Garfield Counties, Washington. Umatilla National Forest proposes to salvage harvest, reforest salvage units, treat activity fuels, and remove potential danger trees within the School Fire Salvage Recovery Project area. The attached vicinity map shows the location of the project on the Pomeroy Ranger District. The Forest Service proposes implementing this project in 2006. Proposed activities are outside the boundary of Willow Springs inventoried roadless area, Pataha Research Natural Area, and any congressionally designated areas, such as wilderness. Three alternatives, including the No Action alternative, were analyzed in the DEIS. Alternative A is the No Action alternative. Alternative B, the proposed action and preferred alternative, would salvage harvest dead and dying trees on 9,432 acres, and remove danger trees along haul routes, open forest routes and developed recreation sites, and administrative sites. Alternative C is designed to remove danger trees and salvage harvest primarily dead trees on 4,188 acres where fire effects were obviously severe enough to kill 90 percent of trees, along with incidental amounts (less than 10 percent) of trees with visible green needles, within a unit. Both action alternatives (B and C) include Forest Plan amendments. The Forest Plan would be amended, for this site-specific project, to incorporate objectives, standards, and guidelines for Canada lynx, and would be amended to allocate new C1-Dedicated Old Growth areas to replace C1 areas changed by the fire and no longer functioning as old growth. If you would like to view the DEIS check the internet at www.fs.fed.us/r6/uma/projects/readroom. If you

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)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.386
Threshold uncertainty score0.551

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0070.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6140.534

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 head0.189
Teacher spread0.184 · 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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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