Index sensitivity analysis applied to the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index and the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A number of different methodologies are developed for examining the sensitivities of an index. These methodologies are applied to examine the characteristics of the Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI) and the McArthur Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) using 8 years of gridded data throughout Australia. Percentile changes in input conditions show that the indices are similar to each other in that they are both most sensitive to wind speed, then secondly to relative humidity and thirdly to temperature. On a finer scale, a combination of the relationship between the indices and their partial derivatives shows that the FFDI is relatively less sensitive to wind speed and rainfall, and more sensitive to temperature and relative humidity, than the FWI. A method based on equilibrium values of the indices shows that the FFDI has a temperature threshold set by recent rainfall above which its sensitivity increases, resulting in some non-linearity in its relationship with the FWI. The sensitivity differences between the indices mean that the indices are complementary in that they each respond to a somewhat different set of conditions, as is shown by examining a number of recent fire events. The fire events also reveal that index values associated with dangerous fire behaviour can vary greatly between different regions. Methods to reduce the consequences of this variation are examined, including the use of index percentiles. Copyright © 2009 Royal Meteorological Society
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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 it