Assessing accuracy of point fire intervals across landscapes with simulation modelling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We assessed accuracy in point fire intervals using a simulation model that sampled four spatially explicit simulated fire histories. These histories varied in fire frequency and size and were simulated on a flat landscape with two forest types (dry versus mesic). We used three sampling designs (random, systematic grids, and stratified). We assessed the sensitivity of estimates of Weibull median probability fire intervals (WMPI) to sampling design and to factors that degrade the fire scar record: failure of a tree to record a fire and loss of fire-scarred trees. Accuracy was affected by all of the factors investigated and generally varied with fire regime type. The maximum error was from degradation of the record, primarily because degradation reduced the number of intervals from which WMPI was estimated. The sampling designs were roughly equal in their ability to capture overall WMPI, regardless of fire regime, but the gridded design yielded more accurate estimates of spatial variation in WMPI. Accuracy in WMPI increased with increasing number of points sampled for all fire regimes and sampling designs, but the number of points needed to obtain accurate estimates was greater for fire regimes with complex spatial patterns of fire intervals than for those with relatively homogeneous patterns.
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 | 0.023 | 0.106 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".