Exploring spatially varying relationships between forest fire and environmental factors at different quantile levels
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effect of driving factors on forest fire occurrence at various risk levels beyond average fire risk is of great interest to forest fire managers in practice. Using forest fire occurrence data collected in Fujian province, China, global quantile regression (QR) and geographically weighted quantile regression (GWQR) were applied to investigate the spatially varying relationships between forest fire and environmental factors at different quantiles (e.g. 0.50, 0.75, 0.90 and 0.99) of fire occurrence. These results indicated that: (1) at each quantile, the regression coefficients of both global QR and GWQR were negative for elevation, slope and Normalised Difference Vegetation Index, and positive for settlement density, national road density and grass cover; (2) low number of pixels with high fire occurrence in space might dramatically affect the analysis and modelling of the relationship between fire occurrence and a specific environmental factor; (3) according to GWQR, the relationships between forest fire and environmental factors significantly varied across the study area at different quantiles of fire occurrence; and (4) the GWQR models performed better in model fitting and prediction than the QR models at all quantiles. Therefore, the GWQR models could help decision makers to better plan for forest fire management and prevention strategies.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".