Mapping fuels at multiple scales: landscape application of the Fuel Characteristic Classification SystemThis article is one of a selection of papers published in the Special Forum on the Fuel Characteristic Classification System.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fuel mapping is a complex and often multidisciplinary process, involving remote sensing, ground-based validation, statistical modelling, and knowledge-based systems. The scale and resolution of fuel mapping depend both on objectives and availability of spatial data layers. We demonstrate use of the Fuel Characteristic Classification System (FCCS) for fuel mapping at two scales and resolutions: the conterminous USA (CONUS) at 1 km resolution and the Wenatchee National Forest, in Washington State, at 25 m resolution. We focus on the classification phase of mapping — assigning a unique fuelbed to each mapped cell in a spatial data layer. Using a rule-based method, we mapped 112 fuelbeds onto 7.8 million 1 km cells in the CONUS, and mapped 34 fuelbeds onto 18 million 25 m cells in the Wenatchee National Forest. These latter 34 fuelbeds will be further subdivided based on quantitative spatial data layers representing stand structure and disturbance history. The FCCS maps can be used for both modelling and management at commensurate scales. Dynamic fuel mapping is necessary as we move into the future with rapid climatic and land-use change, and possibly increasing disturbance extent and severity. The rule-based methods described here are well suited for updating with new spatial data, to keep local, regional, and continental scale fuel assessments current and inform both research and management.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".