Copula in Wildfire Analysis: A Systematic Literature Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AbstractCopula model is a method that can be implemented in various study fields, including analyzing wildfires. The copula distribution function gives a simple way to define joint distribution between two or more random variables. This study aims to review the application of copula in the analysis of wildfires using a Systematic Literature Review (SLR) and provide insight into research opportunities related to the application in Indonesia. The results show there are very few articles using the copula model in the analysis of wildfires. However, the increasing number of article citations each year shows the importance of such article research and has contributed to wildfire analysis development. In that article, 50% of studies applied the copula model to direct wildfire analysis (using fire data) in Canada, Portugal, and the US. Meanwhile, the other 50% use the copula model for indirect wildfire analysis (not using fire data) in Canada and the European region. The outcome of the presented review will provide the latest research positions and future research opportunities on the application of copula in the analysis of wildfires in Indonesia.Keywords: copula; wildfire; systematic literature review. AbstrakModel copula merupakan metode yang dapat diimplementasikan pada berbagai bidang penelitian, salah satunya pada analisis kebakaran hutan. Fungsi sebaran copula memberikan cara yang mudah untuk mendefinisikan sebaran peluang bersama antara dua peubah acak atau lebih. Tujuan penelitian ini mengulas penerapan model copula tersebut pada analisis kebakaran hutan dalam studi literatur menggunakan Systematic Literature Review (SLR) serta memberikan peluang riset ke depan terkait implementasinya pada analisis kebakaran hutan di Indonesia. Hasil penelitian menunjukkan bahwa model copula pada analisis kebakaran hutan masih sangat sedikit. Namun, peningkatan jumlah sitasi artikel tiap tahun menunjukkan pentingnya penelitian tersebut dan memiliki kontribusi pada perkembangan analisis kebakaran hutan. Pada artikel tersebut, sebanyak 50% penelitian menerapkan model copula pada analisis kebakaran secara langsung (menggunakan data kebakaran) di Kanada, Portugal, dan Amerika. Sementara, sebanyak 50% lainnya menerapkan model copula pada analisis kebakaran secara tak langsung (tidak menggunakan data kebakaran), yaitu di Kanada dan kawasan Eropa. Hasil tinjauan memberikan posisi riset terkini serta usulan riset ke depan mengenai penerapan model copula untuk analisis kebakaran hutan dan lahan di Indonesia.Kata kunci: copula; kebakaran hutan; studi literatur sistematik.
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 | 0.021 | 0.103 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".