The importance of fire–atmosphere coupling and boundary-layer turbulence to wildfire spread
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The major source of uncertainty in wildfire behavior prediction is the transient behavior of wildfire due to changes in flow in the fire’s environment. The changes in flow are dominated by two factors. The first is the interaction or ‘coupling’ between the fire and the fire-induced flow. The second is the interaction or ‘coupling’ between the fire and the ambient flow driven by turbulence due to wind gustiness and eddies in the atmospheric boundary layer (ABL). In the present study, coupled wildfire–atmosphere large-eddy simulations of grassland fires are used to examine the differences in the rate of spread and area burnt by grass fires in two types of ABL, a buoyancy-dominated ABL and a roll-dominated ABL. The simulations show how a buoyancy-dominated ABL affects fire spread, how a roll-dominated ABL affects fire spread, and how fire lines interact with these two different ABL flow types. The simulations also show how important are fire–atmosphere couplings or fire-induced circulations to fire line spread compared with the direct impact of the turbulence in the two different ABLs. The results have implications for operational wildfire behavior prediction. Ultimately, it will be important to use techniques that include an estimate of uncertainty in wildfire behavior forecasts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".