Bibliographic record
Abstract
G. M. Byram (1959) proposed a method for computing the ratio of the vertical flux of buoyancy generated by a wildfire (power of the fire P f ) to the horizontal flux of kinetic energy due to the atmospheric winds (power of the wind P w). Utilizing this power ratio in his case studies of wildfires, Byram concluded that when the ratio exceeds unity for at least 0.3 km above the fire, phenomena associated with blowup behavior such as firewhirls, spotting, and strong indrafts occur. Though Byram made this claim over 40 years ago, there has been little effort on the part of fire researchers to test it. Byram's calculation of P f describes an ideal case—a fire that burns in a neutrally stable atmosphere and does not entrain atmospheric air into its convection column. In the present paper, these restrictions are relaxed and Byram's calculations are repeated for a fire whose column entrains air from a non-neutral atmosphere. The new model yields a P f that is smaller than Byram's P f by a factor of about 2, is weakly dependent on stability, and is independent of entrainment above a height of 0.5 km. Both models are moderately restricted in that column processes involving liquid water are not considered.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 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".