Development and testing of models for predicting crown fire rate of spread in conifer forest stands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rate of spread of crown fires advancing over level to gently undulating terrain was modeled through nonlinear regression analysis based on an experimental data set pertaining primarily to boreal forest fuel types. The data set covered a significant spectrum of fuel complex and fire behavior characteristics. Crown fire rate of spread was modeled separately for fires spreading in active and passive crown fire regimes. The active crown fire rate of spread model encompassing the effects of 10-m open wind speed, estimated fine fuel moisture content, and canopy bulk density explained 61% of the variability in the data set. Passive crown fire spread was modeled through a correction factor based on a criterion for active crowning related to canopy bulk density. The models were evaluated against independent data sets originating from experimental fires. The active crown fire rate of spread model predicted 42% of the independent experimental crown fire data with an error lower then 25% and a mean absolute percent error of 26%. While the models have some shortcomings and areas in need of improvement, they can be readily utilized in support of fire management decision making and other 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 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 | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".