MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4353004447 · doi:10.1109/jstars.2023.3255230

Prescribed Grass Fire Mapping and Rate of Spread Measurement Using NIR Images From a Small Fixed-Wing UAS

2023· article· en· W4353004447 on OpenAlexaff
Saket Gowravaram, Haiyang Chao, Zhenghao Lin, Sheena Parsons, Tiebiao Zhao, Ming Xin, Xiaolin Hu, Pengzhi Tian, Harold P. Flanagan, Guanghui Wang

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote Sensing · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersU.S. Department of AgricultureNational Institute of Food and AgricultureNational Science Foundation
KeywordsNotationRaspberry piMathematicsArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceRemote sensingArithmeticGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This article focuses on the mapping and rate of spread (ROS) measurement of grass fires using near infrared (NIR) images acquired by a small fixed-wing unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operating at low altitudes. A new method is proposed for spatiotemporal representation of grass fire evolution using time labeled UAS NIR orthomosaics stitched from aerial images collected at varying time stamps over different regions of fire. Furthermore, a novel NIR intensity variance thresholding method is proposed for accurate identification and delineation of grass fire fronts based on the obtained NIR mosaics in digital numbers. The proposed methods are demonstrated and validated using UAS NIR imagery acquired over a prescribed tallgrass fire in Kansas (around 13 ha.). Three NIR short time-series orthomosaics are generated at a time interval of about 2 min with a spatial registration accuracy of 1.45 m (RMSE). The mean ROS for head, flank, and back tallgrass fires are measured to be 0.28, 0.1, and 0.025 m/s.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.177 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Journal of Selected Topics in Applied Earth Observations and Remote SensingSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207