MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3148034107 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu21-14602

Evaluation of the reliability of the high-resolution WRF fire danger forecasts in Poland

2021· article· en· W3148034107 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
M Gruszczyńska, Alan Mandal, Grzegorz Nykiel, Tomasz Strzyżewski, Weronika Wrońska, Adam Jaczewski, Mariusz Figurski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWeather Research and Forecasting ModelEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyIndex (typography)ClimatologyGeographyComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Fires negatively affect the composition and structure of fauna and flora, as well as the quality of air, soils and water. They cause economic losses and pose a risk to human life. Poland is at the forefront of European countries in terms of forest fires. Therefore, Institute of Meteorology and Water Management - National Research Institute (IMWM-NIR) implemented fire danger forecast system based on high-resolution (2.5 km) Weather Research and Forecast (WRF) model. Forecasted meteorological data are used to calculate parameters of Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index (FWI) System: Fire Weather Index (FWI), Initial Spread Index (ISI), Buildup Index (BUI), Fine Fuel Moisture Code (FFMC), Duff Moisture Code (DMC), and Drought Code (DC). Each parameter is presented in one of the classes corresponding to the fire danger – from low to extreme. In this way, a daily 24- and 48-hour fire danger forecasts are generated for the whole area of Poland and presented on IMWM-NIR meteorological website (meteo.imgw.pl). In this presentation we show analyses of reliability of implemented FWI system. For this purpose, data reprocessing from March to September 2019 were made. Also data on fires occurrence on forest lands: time of occurrence, characteristics and location, from the resources of the State Fire Service were collected. Finally, for the selected period, we obtained a dataset of about 8 thousand events for which we assigned values of FWI parameters. Generally, based on our analysis, correlation between number of fires and averaged value of FWI amounted over 0.8. We found out, the correlation coefficient calculated for regions differ. The correlation is higher in central and northern Poland compared to the eastern part of the country, which also correspond to the number of fires. This may be related to the different forest structure - there is a higher proportion of broadleaf forests in the east. The comparison of 24- and 48-hour forecasts showed that they have similar reliability.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.077

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→