MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2148999964 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2011.2165940

Remote Sensing-Based Assessment of Fire Danger Conditions Over Boreal Forest

2011· article· en· W2148999964 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersUniversiti Putra MalaysiaKhulna UniversityNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsTaigaVegetation (pathology)BorealEcosystemRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceBiodiversitySatelliteForestryPhysical geographyComputer scienceEcologyGeographyBiologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Forest fire is an integral part in many forested ecosystems including boreal forests, that influences forest productivity, biodiversity and socio-economy, among others. In this paper, we evaluated the potential of three selected satellite (i.e., MODIS)-based variables/indices at 8-day temporal resolution, i.e., surface temperature ( <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">T</i> <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">S</sub> ), normalized multiband drought index (NMDI) and temperature vegetation wetness index (TVWI) in predicting/forecasting the fire danger conditions over boreal forest regions of Alberta during the period 2006-2008. The method was based on the assumption that the fire danger conditions during <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">i</i> +1 period would be high if the instantaneous values of: (i) <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">T</i> <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">S</sub> values were either higher or equal; or (ii) NMDI or TVWI values were either lower or equal; with compare to their respective study-area-specific average during i period. The analyses were conducted on the basis of either individual variable or combining all of the three together. We found that 60.59% for <i xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">T</i> <sub xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">S</sub> , 72.41% for NMDI, and 54.19% for TVWI of fires fell under the high fire danger conditions. The combination of all of the three individual variables, it revealed that 91.63% of the fires fell in the categories of “very high” (i.e., all three variables indicated high danger), “high” (i.e., at least two of them indicated high danger), and “moderate” (i.e., at least one of the variables indicated high danger) fire danger classes. These results showed that the applicability of the proposed method in predicting fire danger conditions over the boreal forest regions.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.614

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.221 · 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