Multi-scale evaluation of the environmental controls on burn probability in a southern Sierra Nevada landscape
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the scale-dependent relationship between spatial fire likelihood or burn probability (BP) and some key environmental controls in the southern Sierra Nevada, California, USA. Continuous BP estimates were generated using a fire simulation model. The correspondence between BP (dependent variable) and elevation, ignition density, fuels and aspect was evaluated at incrementally increasing spatial scales to assess the importance of these explanatory variables in explaining BP. Results indicate the statistical relationship between BP and explanatory variables fluctuates across spatial scales, as does the influence of explanatory variables. However, because of high covariance among these variables, it was necessary to control for their shared contribution in order to extract their ‘unique’ contribution to BP. At the finest scale, fuels and elevation exerted the most influence on BP, whereas at broader scales, fuels and aspect were most influential. Results also showed that the influence of some variables tended to mask the true effect of seemingly less important variables. For example, the relationship between ignition density and BP was negative until we controlled for elevation, which led to a more meaningful relationship where BP increased with ignition density. This study demonstrates the value of a multi-scale approach for identifying and characterising mechanistic controls on BP that can often be blurred by strong but correlative relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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 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".