MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156302207 · doi:10.1071/wf03066

Fire weather index system components for large fires in the Canadian boreal forest

2004· article· en· W2156302207 on OpenAlexafffundabout
B. D. Amiro, K. A. Logan, B. Mike Wotton, Mike Flannigan, J. B. Todd, B. J. Stocks, David L. Martell

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Wildland Fire · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of ManitobaOntario Forest Research InstituteCanadian Forest Service
FundersMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsBorealTaigaEnvironmental scienceFire regimeClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyPhysical geographyForestryGeographyEcosystemEcologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI) System components and head fire intensities were calculated for fires greater than 2 km2 in size for the boreal and taiga ecozones of Canada from 1959 to 1999. The highest noon-hour values were analysed that occurred during the first 21 days of each of 9333 fires. Depending on ecozone, the means of the FWI System parameters ranged from: fine fuel moisture code (FFMC), 90 to 92 (82 to 96 for individual fires); duff moisture code (DMC), 38 to 78 (10 to 140 for individual fires); drought code (DC), 210 to 372 (50 to 600 for individual fires); and fire weather index, 20 to 33 (5 to 60 for individual fires). Fine fuel moisture code decreased, DMC had a mid-season peak, and DC increased through the fire season. Mean head fire intensities ranged from 10 to 28 MW m−1 in the boreal spruce fuel type, showing that most large fires exhibit crown fire behaviour. Intensities of individual fires can exceed 60 MW m−1. Most FWI System parameters did not show trends over the 41-year period because of large inter-annual variability. A changing climate is expected to create future weather conditions more conducive to fire throughout much of Canada but clear changes have not yet occurred.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.366
Threshold uncertainty score0.835

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.225
Teacher spread0.217 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations130
Published2004
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Wildland FireSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207