AHP and fuzzy logic geospatial approach for forest fire vulnerable zones
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Fires are devastating risky events in forests, having a negative effect on resources, biodiversity, economics, animal life, and putting people in danger. The goal of this study is to use geospatial techniques to identify areas in Jordan that are at risk of forest fires. The research area extends 50 kilometers north and 15 kilometers east from the Dead Sea. The forest fire risk zones map was developed using six factors: land cover class, aspect, proximity to settlements, elevation, slope, and proximity to roads. All of the factors have been selected based on their fire sensitivity or capacity to cause fire. In this study, a Turkish model with fuzzy logic and Analytical hierarchy analysis (AHP) was utilized to classify the area into five categories of risk ranging from very low to very high. According to the findings, approximately 12.12% of the study area is classified as very low risk, 25.54 % is classified as medium risk, while 12.84% is classified as very high risk. Over the last ten years, the map has been confirmed by prior fire occurrences using data from civil defense archives. This conclusion was very useful in gaining an understanding of the geographical distribution of fire-vulnerable zones. The research found that the GIS approach combined with AHP and fuzzy logic is a useful tool for estimating such kinds of maps.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".