Wildfire Risk Forecasting Using Weights of Evidence and Statistical Index Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The risk of forest and pasture fires is one of the research topics of interest around the world. Applying precise strategies to prevent potential effects and minimize the occurrence of such incidents requires modeling. This research was conducted in the city of Sanandaj, which is located in the west of the province of Kurdistan and the west of Iran. In this study, fire risk potential was assessed using weights of evidence (WoE) and statistical index (SI) models. Information about fire incidents in Sanandaj (2011–2020) was divided into two parts: educational data (2011–2017) and validation data (2018–2020). Factors considered for potential forest and rangeland fire risk in Sanandaj city included altitude, slope percentage, slope direction, distance from the road, distance from the river, land use/land cover (LULC), average annual rainfall, and average annual temperature. Finally, in order to validate the two models used, the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was used. The results for the WoE and SI models showed that about 62.96% and 52.75% of the study area, respectively, were in the moderate risk to very high risk classes. In addition, the results of the ROC curve analysis showed that the WoE and SI models had area under the curve (AUC) values of 0.741 and 0.739, respectively. Although the input parameters for both models were the same, the WoE model showed a slightly higher AUC value compared to the SI model, and can potentially be used to predict future fire risk in the study area. The results of this study can help decision makers and managers take the necessary precautions to prevent forest and rangeland fires and/or to minimize fire damage.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".