Comparative analysis of daytime fire detection algorithms using AVHRR data for the 1995 fire season in Canada: Perspective for MODIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Two fixed-threshold (CCRS and ESA) and three contextual (GIGLIO, IGBP, and MODIS) algorithms were used for fire detection with Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) data acquired over Canada during the 1995 fire season. The CCRS algorithm was developed for the boreal ecosystem, while the other four are for global application. The MODIS algorithm, although developed specifically for use with the MODIS sensor data, was applied to AVHRR in this study for comparative purposes. Fire detection accuracy assessment for the algorithms was based on comparisons with available 1995 burned area ground survey maps covering five Canadian provinces. Overall accuracy estimations in terms of omission (CCRS=46%, ESA=81%, GIGLIO=75%, IGBP=51%, MODIS=81%) and commission (CCRS=0.35%, ESA=0.08%, GIGLIO=0.56%, IGBP=0.75%, MODIS=0.08%) errors over forested areas revealed large differences in performance between the algorithms, with no relevance to type (fixed-threshold or contextual). CCRS performed best in detecting real forest fires, with the least omission error, while ESA and MODIS produced the highest omission error, probably because of their relatively high threshold values designed for global application. The commission error values appear small because the area of pixels falsely identified by each algorithm was expressed as a ratio of the vast unburned forest area. More detailed study shows that most commission errors in all the algorithms were incurred in non-forest agricultural areas, especially on days with very high surface temperatures. The advantage of the high thresholds in ESA and MODIS was that they incurred the least commission errors. The poor performance of the algorithms (in terms of omission errors) is not only due to their quality but also to cloud cover, low satellite overpass frequency, and the saturation of AVHRR channel 3 at about 321 K. Great improvement in global fire detection can probably be achieved by exploring the use of a wide variety of channel combinations from the data-rich MODIS instruments. More sophisticated algorithms should be designed to accomplish this.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".