Predicting the ignition of crown fuels above a spreading surface fire. Part I: model idealization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A model was developed to predict the ignition of forest crown fuels above a surface fire based on heat transfer theory. The crown fuel ignition model (hereafter referred to as CFIM) is based on first principles, integrating: (i) the characteristics of the energy source as defined by surface fire flame front properties; (ii) buoyant plume dynamics; (iii) heat sink as described by the crown fuel particle characteristics; and (iv) energy transfer (gain and losses) to the crown fuels. Fuel particle temperature increase is determined through an energy balance relating heat absorption to fuel particle temperature. The final model output is the temperature of the crown fuel particles, which upon reaching ignition temperature are assumed to ignite. CFIM predicts the ignition of crown fuels but does not determine the onset of crown fire spread per se. The coupling of the CFIM with models determining the rate of propagation of crown fires allows for the prediction of the potential for sustained crowning. CFIM has the potential to be implemented in fire management decision support systems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".