FIRE BEHAVIOR VARIABLES AND HAZARD INDICES OF FOREST FIRES
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of different fire hazard indices (FWI, FMA, FMA+, Telicyn, Nesterov, P-EVAP and EVAP/P), taking into account the fire behavior variables and the susceptibility to fire expressed by the moisture of the combustible material. For this purpose, controlled burnings were performed at different times and information was recorded in relation to the meteorological conditions, characteristics of the combustible material and fire behavior variables. In general, all the indices presented significant correlations with both the moisture of the combustible material and the behavior of the fire. However, in general, a higher linear correlation of components of the Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI) system was observed in predicting fire behavior and EVAP / P index in fuel moisture. The consistency of the correlations between the various indices and the analyzed variables makes the methodology possible to be used in any place, facilitating the decision making in regions where records of occurrences of forest fires are absent or unreliable.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it