A mathematical model for predicting the maximum potential spotting distance from a crown fire
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A mathematical model is presented for predicting the maximum potential spot fire distance from an active crown fire. This distance can be estimated from the height of the flame above the canopy top, wind speed at canopy-top height and final firebrand size (i.e. its residual size on alighting), represented by the diameter of a cylinder of woody char. The complete model system comprises several submodels or components: a model for the height and tilt angle of the wind-blown line-fire flame front, a simplified two-dimensional model of the wind-blown buoyant plume from the fire, an assumed logarithmic wind speed variation with height, and an empirically based model for the burning rate of a wooden cylinder in cross flow, which represents the firebrand. The trajectory of the burning particle is expressed analytically from where it leaves the lower boundary of the plume until it enters the canopy top. Adding the horizontal distance of this flight to that of the point where the particle can no longer be held aloft by the plume flow gives a spotting range that depends on the final diameter of the burning particle. Comparisons of model output with existing information on crown fire spotting distances has initially proved encouraging but further evaluation is warranted.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".