Critical fire weather conditions during active fire spread days in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A spread day is defined as a day in which fires grow a substantial amount of area; such days usually occur during high or extreme fire weather conditions. The identification and prediction of a spread day based on fire weather conditions could help both our understanding of fire regimes as well as forecasting and managing fires operationally. This study explores the relationships between fire weather and spread days in the forested areas of Canada by spatially and temporally matching a daily fire growth database to a daily gridded fire weather database that spans from 2001 to 2019. By examining the correlations between spread day fire weather conditions and location, conifer coverage (%), and elevation, we found that a spread day happens under less severe fire weather conditions as latitude increases for the entire study area and as conifer coverage increases within non-mountainous study areas. In the western mountain areas, however, with increasing conifer coverage more severe fire weather conditions are required for a spread day to occur. Using two modeling approaches, we were able to identify spread day indicators (generalized additive model) and to predict the occurrence of spread days (semi-binomial regression model) by Canadian Ecozones both annually and seasonally. Overall, Fine Fuel Moisture Code (FFMC), Initial Spread Index (ISI), and Fire Weather Index (FWI) performed the best in all models built for spread day identification and prediction but varied depending on the conditions mentioned above. FFMC was the most consistent across all spatial and temporal scales.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".