MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2904207394 · doi:10.1071/wf18058

Factors that affect the timing of the dispatch of initial attack resources to forest fires in northeastern Ontario, Canada

2018· article· en· W2904207394 on OpenAlexafffundabout
David L. Martell, Douglas G. Woolford

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Wildland Fire · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWildfire suppressionFire regimeEnvironmental scienceLogistic regressionGeographyFirefightingMeteorologyStatisticsEcosystemEcologyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The success of forest fire initial attack systems is believed to be affected by many factors including the initial attack response time. Despite the fact that fire managers typically strive to dispatch initial attack resources to most fires soon after they are reported in order to minimise their response time, they may not always be able to do so as the timing of the initial attack dispatch can be influenced by many factors. We examine the effects of the following factors on the initial attack dispatch process: the daily fire load (the number of fires reported each day), the time of day the fire was reported, fire weather conditions, fire cause and the month of the fire season, on the probability that initial attack resources are dispatched on the day that a fire is reported. Logistic regression methods are used to analyse a dataset composed of 4532 forest fires that were reported in our study area in a portion of northeastern region of Ontario, Canada, during 1963–2012 fire seasons. Our results indicate that the time of day a fire is reported, the total number of fires reported on that day and the Initial Spread Index are key factors that influence the timing of the initial attack response in our study area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.030
Threshold uncertainty score0.214

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.240 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2018
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Wildland FireSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207