Fire Behaviour Observation in Shrublands in Nova Scotia, Canada and Assessment of Aids to Operational Fire Behaviour Prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Parks Canada, in collaboration with Nova Scotia Lands and Forests and Natural Resources Canada, documented shrub fire behaviour in multiple plots burned over two periods: a spring period in June 2014 and a summer period in July 2017. The study area, located within Cape Breton Highlands National Park, comprised fifteen burn units (20 m by 20 m in size). Each unit was ignited by line ignition and burned under a wide range of conditions. Pre-burn fuel characteristics were measured across the site and used to estimate pre-fire fuel load and post-fire fuel consumption. This fuel complex was similar to many flammable shrub types around the world, results show that this shrub fuel type had high elevated fuel loads (3.17 ± 0.84 kg/m2) composed of exposed live and dead stunted black spruce as well as ericaceous shrubs, mainly Kalmia angustifolia (evergreen) and Rhodora canadensis (deciduous). Data show that the dead moisture content in this fuel complex is systematically lower than expected from the traditional relationship between FFMC and moisture content in the Canadian Fire Weather Index System but was statistically correlated with Equilibrium Moisture Content. A significant inverse relationship between bulk density and fire rate of spread was observed as well as a clear seasonal effect between the spring burns and the summer burns, which is likely attributable to the increase in bulk density in the summer. Unlike most shrub research, wind and dead moisture content did not have a statistically significant association with fire spread rates. However, we believe this to be due to noise in wind data and small dataset. Rate of spread as high as 14 m/min and flame lengths over 4 m were recorded under Initial Spread Index values of 6.4 and relative humidity of 54%. A comparison with a number of well-known shrubland spread rate prediction models was made. An aid to operational fire prediction behaviour is proposed, using a fuel type from the Canadian Fire Prediction System (O-1b) and a modified estimate of fuel moisture of the elevated fuel in the fuel complex.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".