MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2005175503 · doi:10.1071/wf09005

Simple models for predicting dead fuel moisture in eucalyptus forests

2010· article· en· W2005175503 on OpenAlexaff
Stuart Matthews, Jim Gould

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Wildland Fire · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsDepartment of Environment and Conservation
FundersCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
KeywordsWind speedEucalyptusMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceTable (database)Relative humiditySimple (philosophy)Water contentFire regimeMoistureApproximation errorAtmospheric sciencesStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceGeographyEcologyEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fire behaviour prediction requires models of dead fuel moisture that are both accurate and suitable for use for operational applications. The paper investigates two methods of developing a simple operational fine fuel moisture model from a more complex process-based model. The first simple model is a table of fuel moisture predictions for values of air temperature, relative humidity, wind speed and solar radiation. The second model reduces the original model to a single differential equation, which may be used on low-powered computers. The simple models are tested against the output of the original model and against observations from two case studies in dry eucalyptus forest in south-western Australia. The single differential equation model was capable of reproducing the prediction of the process-based model at all times of the day, with mean error (ME) in predictions of –0.1% and mean absolute error (MAE) of 0.6%. The table model performed less well, with ME = –0.7% and MAE = 1.1% at 1500 hours, and ME = –1.2% and MAE = 3.0% at other times of the day.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.496
Threshold uncertainty score0.340

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.238 · 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

Citations80
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Wildland FireSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207