Forest Fire Risk Estimation in a Typical Temperate Forest in Northeastern China using the Canadian Forest Fire Weather Index, Case of Autumn 2019 and 2020
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract China's forest cover has increased by about 10% as a result of sustainable forest management since the late 1970s. The forest ecosystems area affected by fire is increasing at the alarming rate of roughly 600.000 ha per year. The northeastern part of China, with a forest cover of 41.6%, has the greatest percentage of acres affected by forest fires. This study combines field and satellite weather data to determine factors that influence dead fuel moisture content (FMC). It assesses the use of the Canadian forest fire weather index (FWI) to determine the daily forest fire danger in a typical temperate forest in northeastern China in the fall season. Based on the Wilcoxon test for paired samples, the observed and predicted values of FMC showed similar variation in 63.6% of sampling sites, with p-value > 0.05; and 36.4 % of sampling sites presented lower predicted values of FMC than observed values, with p-value < 0.05. The Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System estimated the fire danger level as very low, low, moderate, high, or very high in our Maoer mountain forest ecosystems.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".