MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016951191 · doi:10.1071/wf07167

Detection of clusters using space–time scan statistics

2009· article· en· W2016951191 on OpenAlexaff
Marj Tonini, Devis Tuia, Frédéric Ratle

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Wildland Fire · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsBC Research (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeographyLand coverCluster analysisPeriod (music)Moderate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerRemote sensingPhysical geographyCartographyEnvironmental scienceLand useStatisticsSatelliteEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper aims at detecting spatio-temporal clustering in fire sequences using space–time scan statistics, a powerful statistical framework for the analysis of point processes. The methodology is applied to active fire detection in the state of Florida (US) identified by MODIS (Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer) during the period 2003–06. Results of the present study show that statistically significant clusters can be detected and localized in specific areas and periods of the year. Three out of the five most likely clusters detected for the entire frame period are localized in the north of the state, and they cover forest areas; the other two clusters cover a large zone in the south, corresponding to agricultural land and the prairies in the Everglades. In order to analyze if the wildfires recur each year during the same period, the analyses have been performed separately for the 4 years: it emerges that clusters of forest fires are more frequent in hot seasons (spring and summer), while in the southern areas, they are widely present during the whole year. The recognition of overdensities of events and the ability to locate them in space and in time can help in supporting fire management and focussing on prevention measures.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations51
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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