The importance of low‐level environmental vertical wind shear to wildfire propagation: Proof of concept
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study is a proof of concept of the sensitivity of grassfire propagation to vertical shear in the near‐surface environmental flow found through four comparative grassfire numerical simulations with a coupled wildfire‐atmosphere model. A unidirectional constant wind field, under neutral atmospheric conditions, no surface friction, Coriolis force or topography, and homogeneous fuel, prescribes the model environment. By using the same surface (at 6.2 m above ground level) wind speed for all simulations, analyses of the results can suggest when the behavior and spread rate of the fire may depend more on the interaction of the fire plume with the shear in the above surface wind or more on the magnitude of the mean upstream surface wind speed at the surface. Three aspects of wildfire behavior are investigated: impact of unidirectional vertical shear on surface flow properties and fire line propagation; variability in fire spread and area burnt due to the evolution of the surface flow; and implications of low‐level vertical wind shear on the prediction of wildfire, especially extreme or erratic, behavior.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".