Remote sensing of burn severity: experience from western Canada boreal fires*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The severity of a burn for post-fire ecological effects has been assessed with the composite burn index (CBI) and the differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (dNBR). This study assessed the relationship between these two variables across recently burned areas located in the western Canadian boreal, a region not extensively evaluated in previous studies. Of particular interest was to evaluate the nature of the CBI–dNBR relationship from the perspectives of modelling, the influence of fire behaviour prediction (FBP) fuel type, and how field observations could be incorporated into the burn severity mapping process. A non-linear model form best represented the relationship between these variables for the fires evaluated, and a similar statistical performance was achieved when data from all fires were pooled into a single dataset. Results from this study suggest the potential to develop a single model for application over the western region of the boreal, but further evaluation is necessary. This evaluation could include stratification by FBP fuel type due to study results that document its apparent influence on dNBR values. A new approach for burn severity mapping was introduced by defining severity thresholds through field assessment of CBI, and from which development of new models could be incorporated directly into the mapping process.
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 | 0.000 | 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".