MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991213365 · doi:10.5194/asr-2-77-2008

Fire Weather Index application in north-western Italy

2008· article· en· W1991213365 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
D. Cane, N. Ciccarelli, F. Gottero, A. Francesetti, F. Pelfini

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in science and research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationClimatologyMeteorologyPhysical geographyGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Piedmont region is located in North-Western Italy and is surrounded by the alpine chain and by the Appennines. The region is covered by a wide extension of forests, mainly in its mountain areas (the forests cover 36% of the regional territory). Forested areas are interested by wildfire events. In the period 1997–2005 Piedmont was interested by an average 387 forest fires per year, covering an average 1926 ha of forest per year. Meteorological conditions like long periods without precipitation contribute to create favourable conditions to forest fire development, while the fire propagation is made easier by the foehn winds, frequently interesting the region in winter and spring particularly. The meteorological danger index FWI (Fire Weather Index) was developed by Van Wagner (1987) for the Canadian Forestry Service, providing a complete description of the behaviour of the different forest components in response to the changing weather conditions. We applied the FWI to the Piedmont region on warning areas previously defined for fire management purposes. The meteorological data-set is based on the data of the very-dense non-GTS network of weather stations managed by Arpa Piemonte. The thresholds for the definition of a danger scenarios system were defined comparing historical FWI data with fires occurred on a 5 years period. The implementation of a prognostic FWI prediction system is planned for the early 2008, involving the use of good forecasts of weather parameters at the station locations obtained by the Multimodel SuperEnsemble post-processing technique.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.063
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in science and researchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207