MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2074049028 · doi:10.1139/x07-093

Fire potential rating for wildland fuelbeds using the Fuel Characteristic Classification SystemThis article is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Forum on the Fuel Characteristic Classification System.

2007· article· en· W2074049028 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
David Sandberg, Cynthia L. Riccardi, Mark D. Schaaf

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCenter for Innovative MedicinePacific Northwest Research StationJoint Fire Science Program
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyPrescribed burnBenchmark (surveying)Set (abstract data type)Computer scienceForestryGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS) is a systematic catalog of inherent physical properties of wildland fuelbeds that allows land managers, policy makers, and scientists to build and calculate fuel characteristics with complete or incomplete information. The FCCS is equipped with a set of equations to calculate the potential of any real-world or simulated fuelbed to spread fire across the surface and in the crowns, and consume fuels. FCCS fire potentials are a set of relative values that rate the intrinsic physical capacity of a wildland fuelbed to release energy and to spread, crown, consume, and smolder under known or benchmark weather and fuel moisture conditions. The FCCS reports eight component fire potentials for every fuelbed, arranged in three categories: surface fire behaviour (reaction intensity, spread rate, and flame length), crown fire potential (torching and active crown fire), and available fuel potential (flaming, smouldering, and residual smouldering). FCCS fire potentials may be used to classify or compare fuelbeds that differ because of location, structure, passage of time, or management action, based on expected fire behavior or effect outcomes. As a classification tool, they are offered as an objective alternative to categorizing bulk properties of fuelbeds or stylized model inputs.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.971
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.281
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 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

Citations36
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207