MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2099722563 · doi:10.1071/wf02007

Studying wildfire behavior using FIRETEC

2002· article· en· W2099722563 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Wildland Fire · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrainFire regimeSet (abstract data type)Process (computing)Vegetation (pathology)MeteorologyBorealComputer scienceHomogeneousEnvironmental scienceEnvironmental resource managementGeographyEcologyStatistical physicsCartographyEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A coupled atmospheric/wildfire behavior model is described that utilizes physics-based process models to represent wildfire behavior. Five simulations are presented, four of which are highly idealized situations that are meant to illustrate some of the dependencies of the model on environmental conditions. The fifth simulation consists of a fire burning in complex terrain with non-homogeneous vegetation and realistic meteorological conditions. The simulated fire behavior develops out of the coupling of a set of very complex processes and not from prescribed rules based on empirical data. This represents a new direction in wildfire modeling that we believe will eventually help decision makers and land managers do their jobs more effectively.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.361
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.229 · 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