Selection of the Methodology for Predicting the Forest Fires Risks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
According to the Federal Forestry Agency, the area of forestry on the territory of the Russian Federation covers approximately two-thirds of the entire area of the country - 1.146 billion hectares. In terms of the forest area in the world in the boreal zone, the leader is the Russian Federation. A distinctive feature of such forests is the inaccessibility and extreme susceptibility to fires. The group of countries in the boreal zone also includes Canada, the USA, Norway, Finland, and Sweden, which makes it possible to refer to their research on selecting the optimal model for calculating fire risks. Due to the abnormally hot weather and the lack of precipitation, a significant fire hazard in the number of the subjects of the Russian Federation in 2020 was recorded from April to September (in 2019, even until November). Weather conditions contributed to the emergence of forest fires in the Urals, Far East, Siberian and Southern federal districts. Monitoring and forecasting of fires in the forest area is poorly developed in the Russian Federation, therefore, it is required to select the optimal method using modern achievements of science and technology to minimize the human contact with the force of nature and the girth of a larger area. The purpose of the study is to select the optimal methodology for predicting the risks of forest fires occurrence. Russian, Canadian, American, and Australian fire risk assessment methodology were identified. In the process of the analysis of the functional features of forest fire forecasting models, the models were compared. As a result, the advantages and disadvantages of the considered models, the scope and versatility of application, as well as their functionality are noted. A further mechanism of work is proposed to create an optimal methodology for calculating risks as the result of forest fires in relation to the features of the relief.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".