Assessing canopy fuel stratum characteristics in crown fire prone fuel types of western North America
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Application of crown fire behavior models in fire management decision-making have been limited by the difficulty of quantitatively describing fuel complexes, specifically characteristics of the canopy fuel stratum. To estimate canopy fuel stratum characteristics of four broad fuel types found in the western United States and adjacent areas of Canada, namely Douglas-fir, ponderosa pine, mixed conifer, and lodgepole pine forest stands, data from the USDA Forest Service's Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) database were analysed and linked with tree-level foliage dry weight equations. Models to predict canopy base height (CBH), canopy fuel load (CFL) and canopy bulk density (CBD) were developed through linear regression analysis and using common stand descriptors (e.g. stand density, basal area, stand height) as explanatory variables. The models developed were fuel type specific and coefficients of determination ranged from 0.90 to 0.95 for CFL, between 0.84 and 0.92 for CBD and from 0.64 to 0.88 for CBH. Although not formally evaluated, the models seem to give a reasonable characterization of the canopy fuel stratum for use in fire management applications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".