Fire Detection and Fire Radiative Power in Forests and Low-Biomass Lands in Northeast Asia: MODIS versus VIIRS Fire Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fire omission and commission errors, and the accuracy of fire radiative power (FRP) from satellite moderate-resolution impede the studies on fire regimes and FRP-based fire emissions estimation. In this study, we compared the accuracy between the extensively used 1-km fire product of MYD14 from the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and the 375-m fire product of VNP14IMG from the Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) in Northeastern Asia using data from 2012–2017. We extracted almost simultaneous observation of fire detection and FRP from MODIS-VIIRS overlapping orbits from the two fire products, and identified and removed duplicate fire detections and corresponding FRP in each fire product. We then compared the performance of the two products between forests and low-biomass lands (croplands, grasslands, and herbaceous vegetation). Among fire pixels detected by VIIRS, 65% and 83% were missed by MODIS in forests and low-biomass lands, respectively; whereas associated omission rates by VIIRS for MODIS fire pixels were 35% and 53%, respectively. Commission errors of the two fire products, based on the annual mean measurements of burned area by Landsat, decreased with increasing FRP per fire pixel, and were higher in low-biomass lands than those in forests. Monthly total FRP from MODIS was considerably lower than that from VIIRS due to more fire omission by MODIS, particularly in low-biomass lands. However, for fires concurrently detected by both sensors, total FRP was lower with VIIRS than with MODIS. This study contributes to a better understanding of fire detection and FRP retrieval performance between MODIS and its successor VIIRS, providing valuable information for using those data in the study of fire regimes and FRP-based fire emission estimation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".