Effects of Climate Change on Burn Probability of Forests in Daxing’anling
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Projecting the burn probability (BP) under future climate scenarios would provide a scientific basis for the implementation of forest fire adaptation technology. This study compared the changes in the climate, fire weather, and burn probability during the fire season in Daxing’anling, China. A burn probability model was established and used to simulate the daily fire occurrence and spread at baseline (1971–2000) and into the 2030s (2021–2050) based on the outputs from five global climate models (GCMs) (GFDL-ESM2M, Had GEM2-ES, IPSL-CM5A-LR, MIROC-ESM-CHEM, and Nor ESM1-M) under four climate scenarios (RCP2.6, RCP4.5, RCP6.0, and RCP8.5). The results showed that the average daily maximum temperature in the fire season will be increased by 2.1 °C (+16.6%) in the 2030s compared with the baseline and precipitation in the fire season will be increased by 7.1%. The average fire weather index (FWI) of the fire season in the 2030s will be increased by 4.2%, but this change is not significant. There will be 39 fires per year in the 2030s, representing an increase of 11.4%. The accuracy of simulated burned areas was 71.2% for the 1991–2010 period. The simulated and observed burned areas showed similar interannual fluctuations during period 1971–2010. The potential burned areas in the 2030s will increase by 18.8% over those in the baseline period and the BP will increase by 19.4%. The implementation of proactive fire management in areas with high predicted BP values will be key for an effective mitigation of future wildfire impacts.
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 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".