MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3206844016 · doi:10.3390/fire4040081

Georeferencing Oblique Aerial Wildfire Photographs: An Untapped Source of Fire Behaviour Data

2021· article· en· W3206844016 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueFire · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources CanadaUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGeoreferencePhotogrammetryOblique caseFront (military)Environmental scienceRemote sensingAerial surveyPosition (finance)Computer scienceMeteorologyGeographyPhysical geography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we investigate a novel application of the photogrammetric monoplotting technique for assessing wildfires. We demonstrate the use of the software program WSL Monoplotting Tool (MPT) to georeference operational oblique aerial wildfire photographs taken during airtanker response in the early stages of fire growth. We located the position of the fire front in georeferenced pairs of photos from five fires taken 31–118 min apart, and calculated the head fire spread distance and head fire rate of spread (HROS). Our example photos were taken 0.7 to 4.7 km from fire fronts, with camera angles of incidence from −19° to −50° to image centre. Using high quality images with detailed landscape features, it is possible to identify fire front positions with high precision; in our example data, the mean 3D error was 0.533 m and the maximum 3D error for individual fire runs was less than 3 m. This resulted in a maximum HROS error due to monoplotting of only ~0.5%. We then compared HROS estimates with predictions from the Canadian Fire Behavior Prediction System, with differences mainly attributed to model error or uncertainty in weather and fuel inputs. This method can be used to obtain observations to validate fire spread models or create new empirical relationships where databases of such wildfire photos exist. Our initial work suggests that monophotogrammetry can provide reproducible estimates of fire front position, spread distance and rate of spread with high accuracy, and could potentially be used to characterize other fire features such as flame and smoke plume dimensions and spotting.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.223 · 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