Random location of fuel treatments in wildland community interfaces: a percolation approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore the use of spatially correlated random treatments to reduce fuels in landscape patterns that appear somewhat natural while forming fully connected fuelbreaks between wildland forests and developed protection zones. From treatment zone maps partitioned into grids of hexagonal forest cells representing potential treatment sites, we selected cells to be treated at random using an algorithm that provides a varying degree of treatment clustering. One thousand or more such maps were used as sample replicates for parameter settings that included landscape size, fraction of area treated, and degree of clustering to test whether continuous fuelbreaks were formed in an acceptable proportion of cases. A shortest path network optimization model was solved for each sample landscape to determine the presence or absence of a continuous fuelbreak and to measure the length of the most direct fuelbreak when one or more were present. By varying the fraction of area treated in a bisection search, we were able to estimate the minimum amount of treatment needed. Results indicated that between 54% and 88% of a forest would need to be treated to form fuelbreaks in 60% or more of the landscapes we modeled.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".