Fire-growth modelling using meteorological data with random and systematic perturbations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The focus of this investigation is to quantify the effects of perturbations in the meteorological data used in a fire-growth model. Observed variations of temperature, humidity, wind speed, and wind direction are applied as perturbations to hourly values within a simulated weather forecast to produce several forecasts. In turn, these are used by a deterministic eight-point fire-growth model to produce an ensemble of possible final fire perimeters. Two studies were conducted to assess the value of applying perturbations. In the first study, fire growth using detailed, one-minute data was compared to growth based on the more commonly used hourly data. Results showed that the detailed weather produced fire growth larger and wider than the hourly based data. By applying perturbations, variations in the flank and back-fire spread were captured by the random-perturbation model while the forward spread fell within the 20 to 30% probability prediction. A sensitivity analysis based on the observed variations showed that wind speed accounted for a 44% difference in area burned, while temperature accounted for only a 16% difference. In the second study, case studies were conducted on four observed forest fires in Wood Buffalo National Park. Results showed that daily fire-growth predictions using simulated weather forecasts over-predicted fire growth using actual hourly weather observations by 27%. Systematic-perturbation models best compensated for this with most fire growth falling within the predicted range of the models (52 out of 63 days).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".