Prioritization in wildfire restoration using GIS-based ordered weighted averaging (OWA): A case study in southern California
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Wildfires are a prevalent natural disaster that can significantly impact human populations and result in considerable losses. With a changing climate, wildfires in many countries have increased in intensity and frequency, making effective restoration efforts in affected areas crucial. This paper aims to evaluate the efficacy of ordered weighted averaging (OWA), a GIS-based multi-criteria decision analysis technique, in identifying priority areas for wildfire restoration. A case study using the 2009 Station Fire in California is presented, using the restoration criteria of slope, erodibility, proximity to forest cover, and proximity to surface water. By applying both importance and order weights, multiple OWA decision strategies with varying risk levels were examined. Different strategies greatly influence the spatial distribution of land considered high and low priority for wildfire restoration, each with varying levels of trade off. In the OWA decision space, placing full emphasis on the highest (best) values (using the risk-taking OR operator) or the lowest values (using the risk-averse AND operator) resulted in composite priority maps that cannot be recommended for practical use. More nuanced scenarios are achieved with the OWA operators representing a range of compromise decision strategies between these extremes. The OWA technique in GIS can thus help to explore the impact of decision-makers' risk attitudes in a wildfire restoration setting.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".