MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2125149611 · doi:10.1139/x07-159

Using fuel and weather variables to predict the sustainability of surface fire spread in maritime pine stands

2008· article· en· W2125149611 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Paulo M. Fernandes, Hermínio Botelho, Francisco Rego, Carlos Loureiro

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia
KeywordsPinus pinasterEnvironmental scienceWater contentLitterFire regimeSmokeMoistureFire ecologyUnderstoryForestryAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyHydrology (agriculture)EcologyGeographyCanopyEcosystemWaste managementEngineeringGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thresholds for surface fire spread were examined in maritime pine ( Pinus pinaster Ait.) stands in northern Portugal. Fire sustainability was assessed after ignition of 2 m fire lines or in larger burns conducted in 10–15 m wide plots. The experiments were carried out from November to June in three fuel types: litter, litter plus shrubs, and litter with a nonwoody understorey. Moisture content of fine dead fuels, on-site weather variables, and descriptors of the fuel complex all had a highly significant influence on the probability of self-sustaining fire spread. A logistic model based solely on fuel moisture content correctly classified the fire sustainability status of 88% of the observations. Nonetheless, the subjectivity of the moisture of extinction concept was apparent, and further accuracy was achieved by the consecutive addition of fire spread direction (forward or backward), fuel type, and ambient temperature. Fully sustained fire spread, in opposition to marginal burns with broken fire fronts, was similarly dependent on fuel moisture but was affected also by fire spread direction and time since rain. The models can benefit fire research and fire management operations but can be made more practical if integrated in a fire danger rating system.

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 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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.140
Threshold uncertainty score0.804

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.256 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations61
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207