High-resolution fire danger forecast for Poland based on the Weather Research and Forecasting Model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Due to climate change and associated longer and more frequent droughts, the risk of forest fires increases. To address this, the Institute of Meteorology and Water Management implemented a system for forecasting fire weather in Poland. The Fire Weather Index (FWI) system, developed in Canada, has been adapted to work with meteorological fields derived from the high-resolution (2.5 km) Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model. Forecasts are made with 24- and 48-h lead times. The purpose of this work is to present the validation of the implemented system. First, the results of the WRF model were validated using in situ observations from ~70 synoptic stations. Second, we used the correlation method and Eastaugh’s percentile analysis to assess the quality of the FWI index. The data covered the 2019 fire season and were analysed for the whole forest area in Poland. Based on the presented results, it can be concluded that the FWI index (calculated based on the WRF model) has a very high predictive ability of fire risk. However, the results vary by region, distance from human habitats, and size of fire.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".