Temporal variations and change of forest fire danger in Europe in 1960–2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Understanding how fire-weather danger indices changed in the past, and detecting how changes affected forest fire activity is important in changing climate. We used the Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI), calculated from two reanalysis datasets, ERA 40 and ERA Interim, to examine the temporal variation of forest fire danger in Europe in 1960–2012. Additionally, we used national forest-fires statistical data from Greece and Spain to relate fire danger and fire activity. There is no obvious trend in fire danger for the time period covered by ERA 40 (1960–1999) whereas for the period 1980–2012 covered by ERA Interim, the mean FWI and the number of high fire risk days shows an increasing trend which is significant at the 99% confidence level for South and East Europe. The cross-correlation calculated at national level in Greece and Spain between mean yearly area burned and mean FWI of the current season is of the order 0.5–0.6, and demonstrates the importance of the fire-season weather on forest fires. Our results show that, fire risk is multifaceted, and factors like changes in fire fighting capacity, ignition patterns, or landscapes might have played a role in forest fires trends. However, weather trends remain as important determinants of forest fires.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".