MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3030544430 · doi:10.3390/fire3020016

Assembling and Customizing Multiple Fire Weather Forecasts for Burn Probability and Other Fire Management Applications in Ontario, Canada

2020· article· en· W3030544430 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Den Boychuk, Colin B. McFayden, Jordan Evens, Jerry A. Shields, Aaron Stacey, Douglas G. Woolford, Mike Wotton, Dan Johnston, D R Leonard, Darren McLarty

Bibliographic record

VenueFire · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceOntario Forest Research InstituteWestern UniversityMinistry of Natural Resources and Forestry
FundersCanadian Forest ServiceOntario Ministry of Natural Resources and ForestryUniversity of TorontoNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaU.S. Forest ServiceUniversity of AlbertaMinistry of Natural Resources
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyRisk managementEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceBusinessGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Weather forecasts are needed in fire management to support risk-based decision-making that considers both the probability of an outcome and its potential impact. These decisions are complicated by the large amount of uncertainty surrounding many aspects of the decision, such as weather forecasts. Wildland fires in Ontario, Canada can burn and actively spread for days, weeks, or even months, or be naturally limited or extinguished by rain. Conventional fire weather forecasts have typically been a single scenario for a period of one to five days. These forecasts have two limitations: they are not long enough to inform some fire management decisions, and they do not convey any uncertainty to inform risk-based decision-making. We present an overview of a method for the assembly and customization of forecasts that (1) combines short-, medium-, and long-term forecasts of different types, (2) calculates Fire Weather Indices and Fire Behaviour Predictions, including modelling seasonal weather station start-up and shutdown, (3) resolves differing spatial resolutions, and (4) communicates forecasts. It is used for burn probability modelling and other fire management applications.

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)0.003
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.039
Threshold uncertainty score0.078

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.188 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFireSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207