Evaluation of the CONSUME and FOFEM fuel consumption models in pine and mixed hardwood forests of the eastern United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reliable predictions of fuel consumption are critical in the eastern United States (US), where prescribed burning is frequently applied to forests and air quality is of increasing concern. CONSUME and the First Order Fire Effects Model (FOFEM), predictive models developed to estimate fuel consumption and emissions from wildland fires, have not been systematically evaluated for application in the eastern US using the same validation data set. In this study, we compiled a fuel consumption data set from 54 operational prescribed fires (43 pine and 11 mixed hardwood sites) to assess each model’s uncertainties and application limits. Regions of indifference between measured and predicted values by fuel category and forest type represent the potential error that modelers could incur in estimating fuel consumption by category. Overall, FOFEM predictions have narrower regions of indifference than CONSUME and suggest better correspondence between measured and predicted consumption. However, both models offer reliable predictions of live fuel (shrubs and herbaceous vegetation) and 1 h fine fuels. Results suggest that CONSUME and FOFEM can be improved in their predictive capability for woody fuel, litter, and duff consumption for eastern US forests. Because of their high biomass and potential smoke management problems, refining estimates of litter and duff consumption is of particular importance.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 | 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".