Forest fire risk analysis via integration of GIS, RS and AHP: The Case of Çanakkale, Turkey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest fire is one of the high-risk natural disasters in the north-western Anatolia section of Turkey. This paper suggests a new approach based on Geographic Information Systems (GIS), Remote Sensing (RS) and Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) for the development of forest fire-risk model. The proposed approach includes human factors as well as environmental factors. In this context, the 12 variables defined under anthropogenic and physical factors in the proposed model are the slope, elevation, aspect, vegetation type, crown closure, Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI), distance to road, settlement, and agricultural areas, population density, previous fires, and Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI). For each variable, a layer was created in the GIS database environment. GIS-layers were classified, considering the risk of potentially generating forest-fire of the relevant variables. In addition, to generate risk maps, the weights used in these GIS-layers were obtained by applying the AHP technique. One of the major results of the study shows that the rates of “extreme”, “very high”, “high”, and “moderate” risk areas are 3.87%, 63.46%, 32.13% and 0.53%, respectively. Another important result is that there are not observed the so called “no risk" and "low risk" classes in the region. The results let us to make a conclusion that the natural and human factors having significant contributions the region to be fire-prone. Yet, these results also indicate that rather than emphasizing forest-fire preparedness and mitigation, policy-makers manage forest-fires through reactive, crisis-oriented approaches. In contrast to crisis-based management plans, this study suggests that risk-based preventive plans should be developed and implemented.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".