Spatial Modelling of Fire Drivers in Urban-Forest Ecosystems in China
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fires in urban-forest ecosystems (UFEs) are frequent with complex causes, posing a serious hazard to human lives and infrastructure. Thus, quantifying wildfire risks in UFEs and their spatial pattern is quintessential to develop appropriate fire management strategies. The aim of this study was to explore spatial (geographically weighted logistic regression, GWLR) versus non-spatial (logistic regression, LR) modelling approaches to determine the relationship between forest fire occurrence and driving factors in Yichun, a typical urban-forest ecosystem in China. As drivers of fire, 13 factors related to topographic, vegetation, infrastructure, meteorological and socio-economy were considered and regressed against fire occurrence data from 1980 to 2010. Results demonstrate the superiority of GWLR models over LR in terms of prediction accuracy, goodness of fit and model residuals. The GWLR model further captured the spatial variability of driving factors over a broad study area, and the fire likelihood maps identified areas with different zones of fire risk in the study area. In conclusion, the study demonstrates quantitatively and spatially the importance of accounting for local variation in drivers of fires, thereby improving fire management and prevention strategies. The findings also contribute to the emerged field of fire management and fire risk assessment in UFEs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".