Wildfires and the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index system for the Daxing'anling region of China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) system was evaluated for the Daxing'anling region of northern China for the 1987–2006 fire seasons. The FWI system reflected the regional fire danger and could be effectively used there in wildfire management. The various FWI system components were classified into classes (i.e. low to extreme) for fire conditions found in the region. A total of 81.1% of the fires occurred in the high, very high and extreme fire danger classes, in which 73.9% of the fires occurred in the spring (0.1, 9.5, 33.3 and 33.1% in March, April, May and June). Large wildfires greater than 200 ha in area (16.7% of the total) burnt 99.2% of the total burnt area. Lightning was the main ignition source for 57.1% of the total fires. Result show that forest fires mainly occurred in deciduous coniferous forest (61.3%), grass (23.9%) and deciduous broad leaved forest (8.0%). A bimodal fire season was detected, with peaks in May and October. The components of FWI system were good indicators of fire danger in the Daxing'anling region of China and could be used to build a working fire danger rating system for the region.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".