An optimization model for locating fuel treatments across a landscape to reduce expected fire losses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Locating fuel treatments with scarce resources is an important consideration in landscape-level fuel management. This paper developed a mixed integer programming (MIP) model for allocating fuel treatments across a landscape based on spatial information for fire ignition risk, conditional probabilities of fire spread between raster cells, fire intensity levels, and values at risk. The fire ignition risk in each raster cell is defined as the probability of fire burning a cell because of the ignition within that cell. The conditional probability that fire would spread between adjacent cells A and B is defined as the probability of a fire spreading into cell B after burning in cell A. This model locates fuel treatments by using a fire risk distribution map calculated through fire simulation models. Fire risk is assumed to accumulate across a landscape following major wind directions and the MIP model locates fuel treatments to efficiently break this pattern of fire risk accumulation. Fuel treatment resources are scarce and such scarcity is introduced through a budget constraint. A test case is designed based on a portion of the landscape (15 552 ha) within the Southern Sierra fire planning unit to demonstrate the data requirements, solution process, and model results. Fuel treatment schedules, based upon single and dual wind directions, are compared.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".