The use of survival analysis methods to model the control time of forest fires in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper presents the results from employing survival analysis methods to model the probability distribution of the control time of forest fires. The Kaplan–Meier estimator, log–location–scale models, accelerated failure time models, and Cox proportional hazards (PH) models are described. Historical lightning and people-caused forest fire data from the Province of Ontario, Canada from 1989 through 2004 are employed to illustrate the use of the Cox PH model. We demonstrate how this methodology can be used to examine the association between the control time of a suppressed forest fire and local factors such as weather, vegetation and fuel moisture, as well as fire management variables including the response time between when a fire is reported and the initiation of suppression action. Significant covariates common to both the lightning and people-caused models were the size of the fire at the onset of initial attack, the Fine Fuel Moisture Code and the Initial Spread Index. The response time was also a significant predictor for the control time of lightning-caused fires, whereas the Drought Code and time of day of initial attack were significant for people-caused fires. Larger values of the covariates in these models were associated with larger survival probabilities.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".