Fire spread probabilities for experimental beds composed of mixedwood boreal forest fuels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although fuel characteristics are assumed to have an important impact on fire regimes through their effects on extinction dynamics, limited capabilities exist for predicting whether a fire will spread in mixedwood boreal forest surface fuels. To improve predictive capabilities, we conducted 347 no-wind, laboratory test burns in surface fuels collected from the mixedwood boreal forest of Saskatchewan. The beds were composed of single fuel types of contrasting characteristics, including feather moss, aspen leaf litter, aspen and alder leaf litter, and twigs. Shredded wood (i.e., excelsior) was included for comparison. An extinction index and logistic model from the literature that balances heat sources and sinks performed well for excelsior, a fuel used to develop the model, but poorly for forest fuels. As a result, we used logistic regression to develop a model for forest fuels finding that fire spread was largely determined by the heat sink, heat of combustion, and fuel bed depth. We found close correspondence between our model and fire spread in an independent sample of beds composed of mixtures of mixedwood fuels (N = 59). Our model can serve as a means of analyzing the relative importance of fuels and weather on extinction dynamics during mixedwood boreal forest fires.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".