Developing a New Hourly Forest Fire Risk Index Based on Catboost in South Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest fires can cause enormous damage, such as deforestation and environmental pollution, even with a single occurrence. It takes a lot of effort and long time to restore areas damaged by wildfires. Therefore, it is crucial to know the forest fire risk of a region to appropriately prepare and respond to such disastrous events. The purpose of this study is to develop an hourly forest fire risk index (HFRI) with 1 km spatial resolution using accessibility, fuel, time, and weather factors based on Catboost machine learning over South Korea. HFRI was calculated through an ensemble model that combined an integrated model using all factors and a meteorological model using weather factors only. To confirm the generalized performance of the proposed model, all forest fires that occurred from 2014 to 2019 were validated using the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and the area under the ROC curve (AUC) values through one-year-out cross-validation. The AUC value of HFRI ensemble model was 0.8434, higher than the meteorological model. HFRI was compared with the modified version of Fine Fuel Moisture Code (FFMC) used in the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating Systems and Daily Weather Index (DWI), South Korea’s current forest fire risk index. When compared to DWI and the revised FFMC, HFRI enabled a more spatially detailed and seasonally stable forest fire risk simulation. In addition, the feature contribution to the forest fire risk prediction was analyzed through the Shapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) value of Catboost. The contributing variables were in the order of relative humidity, elevation, road density, and population density. It was confirmed that the accessibility factors played very important roles in forest fire risk modeling where most forest fires were caused by anthropogenic factors. The interaction between the variables was also examined.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".