Selecting the best performing fire weather indices for Austrian ecoregions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The interpretation and communication of fire danger warning levels based on fire weather index values are critical for fire management activities. A number of different indices have been developed for various environmental conditions, and many of them are currently applied in operational warning systems. To select an appropriate combination of such indices to work in different ecoregions in mountainous, hilly and flat terrain is challenging. This study analyses the performance of a total of 22 fire weather indices and two raw meteorological variables to predict wildfire occurrence for different ecological regions of Austria with respect to the different characteristics in climate and fire regimes. A median-based linear model was built based on percentile results on fire days and non-fire days to get quantifiable measures of index performance using slope and intercept of an index on fire days. We highlight the finding that one single index is not optimal for all Austrian regions in both summer and winter fire seasons. The summer season (May-November) shows that the Canadian build-up index, the Keetch Byram Drought Index and the mean daily temperature have the best performance; in the winter season (December-April), the M68dwd is the best performing index. It is shown that the index performance on fire days where larger fires appeared is better and that the uncertainties related to the location of the meteorological station can influence the overall results. A proposal for the selection of the best performing fire weather indices for each Austrian ecoregion is made.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".