Comparison of Methods for the Assessment of Fire Danger in the Czech Republic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The performance of fire indices based on weather variables was analyzed with a special focus on the Czech Republic. Three fire weather danger indices that are the basis of fire danger rating systems used in different parts of the world were assessed: the Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI), Australian Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) and Finnish Forest Fire Index (FFI). The performance of the three fire danger indices was investigated at different scales and compared with actual fire events. First, the fire danger indices were analyzed for different land use types during the period 1956-2015. In addition, in the analysis, the three fire danger indices were compared with wildfire events during the period 2001-2015. The fire danger indices were also analyzed for the specific locality of the Bzenec area where a large forest fire event occurred in May 2012. The study also focused on the relationship between fire danger indices and forest fires during 2018 across the area of the JihomoravskĂ˝ region. Comparison of the index values with real fires showed that the index values corresponded well with the occurrence of forest fires. The analysis of the year 2018 showed that the highest index values were reached on days with the greater fire occurrence. On days with 5 or 7 reported fires per day, the fire danger indices reached values between 3 and 4.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".