Evaluating a model for predicting active crown fire rate of spread using wildfire observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated the predictive capacity of a rate of spread model for active crown fires (M.G. Cruz, M.E. Alexander, and R.H. Wakimoto. 2005. Can. J. For. Res. 35: 1626–1639) using a relatively large (n = 57) independent data set originating from wildfire observations undertaken in Canada and the United States. The assembled wildfire data were characterized by more severe burning conditions and fire behavior in terms of rate of spread and the degree of crowning activity than the data set used to parameterize the crown fire rate of spread model. The statistics used to evaluate model adequacy showed good fit and a level of uncertainty considered acceptable for a wide variety of fire management and fire research applications. The crown fire rate of spread model predicted 42% of the data with an error lower then ±25%. Mean absolute percent errors of 51% and 60% were obtained for Canadian and American wildfires, respectively. The characteristics of the data set did not allow us to determine where model performance was weaker and consequently identify its shortcomings and areas of future improvement. The level of uncertainty observed suggests that the model can be readily utilized in support of operational fire management decision making and for simulations in fire research studies.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".