Fire-Weather Index and Climate Change
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Fire Weather Index (FWI), an indicator of fire potential, is calculated from weather measurements and thus expected to be responsive to climate change. The data were drawn from records of FWI within the years 1970 to 2018 and from 861 stations in British Columbia, Canada. Since high FWI increases fire risk and monthly and geographic variation in fire potential is known to exist, models of maximum FWI were fitted within month-region groups of stations. Separate for each station, parameters of the generalized extreme-value distribution with linear dependence on time in both location and scale parameters were fitted by the maximum likelihood method. To include spatial dependence, max-stable spatial processes with different distributional assumptions on the components of the spectral representation were fitted by the maximum composite likelihood method. Takeuchi&s;s information criterion was used for model selection. Station p-values from the separate models identified tendencies for increasing or decreasing trends in location and scale parameters. May, July and August had the most stations with stronger increasing trends in location parameter of maximum FWI and this tended to occur in regions where maximum FWI was higher. In contrast, trends in the scale parameter of maximum FWI showed decrease in variability in some regions, particularly in August. Spatial modeling showed trends in some months and regions, not necessarily consistent with the separate modeling results, not unexpected since the two methods would pick up local effects and regional effects, respectively. The analyses demonstrated the usefulness of these extreme value methods for fire weather variables.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".