Spatially-Explicit Prediction of Wildfire Burn Probability Using Remotely-Sensed and Ancillary Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildfire is a critical process shaping the structure and composition of forest landscapes of western Canada. Spatially-explicit forest disturbance history and forest structure estimated using remotely-sensed data enables the characterization of burn probability, defined as the susceptibility of landscapes to fire hazard over time. In this research, we leveraged the Landsat archive to determine the capacity of land cover, forest structure, and forest disturbance information, together with ancillary data, to estimate burn probability. We analyzed the interactions between a number of contributing factors and identified landscapes with high probability to burn across forested ecosystems of Saskatchewan, Canada. Overall, we found that forests composed of coniferous species, with shorter trees (<3 m), low canopy height variability, an open stand structure (<10% canopy cover), and low timber volumes (<50 m3/ha), had higher burn probabilities. A 2015 burn probability map indicated that forests that did burn in 2015 (determined using independently mapped wildfires) had a median predicted burn probability of 81%, while the median burn probability for unburned forest area was 19%. This paper demonstrates the potential to generate detailed and spatially-explicit burn probability maps from time series remote sensing data to inform wildland fire risk modeling, management, and mitigation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".