Bibliographic record
Abstract
In previous descriptions of wind-slope interaction and the spread rate of wildland fires it is assumed that the separate effects of wind and slope are independent and additive and that corrections for these effects may be applied to spread rates computed from existing rate of spread models. A different approach is explored in the present paper in which the upslope component of the fire's buoyant velocity is used with the speed and direction of the ambient wind to produce effective values of wind speed and direction that determine the rate of spread vector. Thus the effective wind speed can replace the ambient wind speed in any suitable fire spread model and provide a description of the combined effects on the fire behavior. The difference between current and threshold values of the effective wind speed also can be used to determine whether fire will spread in a given fuel type. The model is tested with data from experiments reported by Weise (1993) in which fire spread was in response to variation in both wind speed and slope angle. The Weise spread rate data were satisfactorily correlated using dimensional methods and the observed spread rate was reasonably well predicted with an existing rate of spread model. Directional aspects of the model were not tested because the Weise (1993) study did not include winds with a cross-slope component.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
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".