Mapping Soil Moisture as an Indicator of Wildfire Risk Using Landsat 8 Images in Sri Lanna National Park, Northern Thailand
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<p>Severely dry climate plays an important role in the occurrence of wildfires in Thailand. Soil water deficits increase dry conditions, resulting in more intense and longer burning wildfires. The temperature vegetation dryness index (TVDI) and the normalized difference drought index (NDDI) were used to estimate soil moisture during the dry season to explore its use for wildfire risk assessment. The results reveal that the normalized difference wet index (NDWI) and land surface temperature (LST) can be used for TVDI calculation. Scatter plots of both NDWI/LST and the normalized difference vegetation index (NDVI)/LST exhibit the triangular shape typical for the theoretical TVDI. However, the NDWI is more significantly correlated to LST than the NDVI. Linear regression analysis, carried out to extract the maximum and minimum LSTs (LST<sub>max</sub>, LST<sub>min</sub>), indicate that LST<sub>max </sub>andLST<sub>min</sub> delineated by the NDWI better fulfill the collinearity requirement than those defined by the NDVI. Accordingly, the NDWI-LST relationship is better suited to calculate the TVDI. This modified index, called TVDI<sub>NDWI-LST</sub>, was applied together with the NDDI to establish a regression model for soil moisture estimates. The soil moisture model fulfills statistical requirements by achieving 76.65% consistency with the actual soil moisture and estimated soil moisture generated by our model. The relationship between soil moisture estimated from our model and leaf fuel moisture indicates that soil moisture can be used as a complementary dataset to assess wildfire risk, because soil moisture and fuel moisture content (FMC) show the same or similar behavior under dry conditions. <strong></strong></p>
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".