MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2947911397 · doi:10.1111/tgis.12551

A four‐dimensional agent‐based model: A case study of forest‐fire smoke propagation

2019· article· en· W2947911397 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alex K. Smith, Suzana Dragićević

Bibliographic record

VenueTransactions in GIS · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsGeospatial analysisSmokeRepresentation (politics)GeomaticsLandslideEnvironmental scienceGeographyMeteorologyRemote sensingGeologyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Dynamic geospatial complex systems are inherently four‐dimensional (4D) processes and there is a need for spatio‐temporal models that are capable of realistic representation for improved understanding and analysis. Such systems include changes of geological structures, dune formation, landslides, pollutant propagation, forest fires, and urban densification. However, these phenomena are frequently analyzed and represented with modeling approaches that consider only two spatial dimensions and time. Consequently, the main objectives of this study are to design and develop a modeling framework for 4D agent‐based modeling, and to implement the approach to the 4D case study for forest‐fire smoke propagation. The study area is central and southern British Columbia and the western parts of Alberta, Canada for forest fires that occurred in the summer season of 2017. The simulation results produced realistic spatial patterns of the smoke propagation dynamics.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.207
Threshold uncertainty score0.411

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.224 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations5
Published2019
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransactions in GISSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207