Automated prediction of extreme fire weather from synoptic patterns in northern Alberta, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildfires burn an average of 2 million hectares per year in Canada, most of which can be attributed to only a few days of severe fire weather. These “spread days” are often associated with large-scale weather systems. We used extreme threshold values of three Canadian Fire Weather Index System (CFWIS) variables — the fine fuel moisture code (FFMC), initial spread index (ISI), and fire weather index (FWI) — as a proxy for spread days. Then we used self-organizing maps (SOMs) to predict spread days, with sea-level pressure and 500 hPa geopotential height as predictors. SOMs require many input parameters, and we performed an experiment to optimize six key parameters. For each month of the fire season (May–August), we also tested whether SOMs performed better when trained with only one month or with neighbouring months as well. Good performance (AUC of 0.8) was achieved for FFMC and ISI, while nearly good performance was achieved for FWI. To our knowledge, this is the first study to develop a machine-learning model for extreme fire weather that could be deployed in real time.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".