MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4353083650 · doi:10.1007/s11069-023-05885-3

Assessing directional vulnerability to wildfire

2023· article· en· W4353083650 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jennifer L. Beverly, Air M. Forbes

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural Hazards · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersInstitute for Catastrophic Loss Reduction
KeywordsTrajectorySample (material)GeographyVulnerability (computing)Natural hazardEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceMeteorologyComputer security

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Wildfires spread along trajectories set by a coincident wind direction. Despite the highly directional nature of wildfire threats to public safety, landscape fire risk assessments are typically omnidirectional. We used a simple metric of landscape fire exposure to develop a systematic and standardized approach for assessing directional vulnerability to wildfire within a circular assessment area centered on locale of interest. First, we defined a viable wildfire trajectory by analyzing 573 sample trajectories delineated within the burned areas of historical fires in the province of Alberta, Canada. On average, sample trajectories intersected locations assessed as having high wildfire exposure for 79% of their length. We, therefore, defined a viable fire trajectory as one with at least 80% of its length traversing high exposure. Using this criterion, we assessed the viability of directional trajectories representing possible wildfire pathways from outlying landscape areas into a locale of interest centered within a roughly 70,000-ha circular assessment area. At each central assessment point (i.e., community centroid), we delineated 360 linear trajectories into the community at 1° directional intervals. Each 15-km trajectory was divided into three 5-km segments for analysis (inner, middle, and outer). The length of each directional trajectory segment that intersected high exposure was computed for all 1080 directional segments in each community assessment area. In total, we evaluated 986,040 directional segments for 913 communities in the province. Communities exhibited highly unique and varied patterns of directional vulnerabilities to wildfire encroachment. Of the communities analyzed, 136 had at least one continuous viable trajectory spanning the full 15-km distance from the community centroid, and 211 communities had at least one continuous viable trajectory spanning 5–15 km from the community centroid. We developed customized rose or polar diagrams for displaying spatially referenced directional vulnerabilities to wildfire for a given community and combined results for all 913 analyzed communities to assess regional vulnerabilities within administrative management areas (i.e., Forest Areas). Potential applications of our directional assessment method are discussed, including prepositioning and prioritizing limited fire suppression resources, planning fuel reduction treatments, proactively identifying candidate locations for operational activities, assessing transportation network vulnerabilities during evacuations, and scenario planning.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.793
Threshold uncertainty score0.996

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.005

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.282 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations21
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural HazardsSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207