MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W320019707

A Study on the Development of Forest Fire Occurrence Probability Model using Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index -Occurrence of Forest Fire in Kangwon Province -

2009· article· en· W320019707 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Houng-Sek Park, Siyoung Lee, Heemun Chae, Woo-Kyun Lee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of The Korean Society of Hazard Mitigation · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceDrynessPrecipitationMeteorologyWind speedGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.467

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.100
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations5
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of The Korean Society of Hazard MitigationSame topicDiverse Approaches in Healthcare and Education StudiesFrench-language works237,207