A Study on the Development of Forest Fire Occurrence Probability Model using Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index -Occurrence of Forest Fire in Kangwon Province -
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fine fuel moisture code (FFMC), a main component of forest fire weather index(FWI) in the Canadian forest fire danger rating system(CFFDRS), indicated a probability of ignition through expecting a dryness of fine fuels. According to this code, a rising of temperature and wind velocity, a decreasing of precipitation and decline of humidity in a weather condition showed a rising of a danger rate for the forest fire. In this study, we analyzed a weather condition during 5 years in Kangwon province, calculated a FFMC and examined an application of FFMC. Very low humidity and little precipitation was a characteristic during spring and fall fire season in Kangwon province. 75% of forest fires during 5 years occurred in this season and especially 90% of forest fire during fire season occurred in spring. For developing of the prediction model for a forest fire occurrence probability, we used a logistic regression function with forest fire occurrence data and classified mean FFMC during 10 days. Accuracy of a developed model was 63.6%. To improve this model, we need to deal with more meteorological data during overall seasons and to associate a meteorological condition with a forest fire occurrence with more research results.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".