Research on Wildfires and Remote Sensing in the Last Three Decades: A Bibliometric Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluating the impact of wildland fires on landscapes, a pursuit increasingly supported by remote sensing techniques, requires an understanding of wildfire dynamics. This research highlights the main insights from the literature related to “wildfires” and “remote sensing” published between 1991 and 2020. The Scopus database was used as a source of information regarding scientific production on these topics, after which bibliometric tools were employed as a means through which to reveal patterns in this network of journals, terms, countries, and authors. The results suggest that these subject areas have undergone significant developments in the last three decades, having been the focus of growing interest among the scientific community. The most relevant contributions to the literature available have been made by researchers working in the areas of earth and environmental sciences (54% of the publications), primarily in the United States, China, Spain, and Canada. Research trends in this field have undergone a significant evolution in recent decades, explained by the strong relationship between the technological evolution of detection methods and remote sensing data acquisition.
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 | 0.005 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.117 | 0.195 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".