Forest Fire Risk Zone Mapping in Mizoram Using RS and GIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent years, India’s Northeastern territory has been plagued by wildfires. Mizoram, as per FSI, has been among the most affected regions, with approximately 20,744-recorded wildfires. Forest fire directly or indirectly affects human health, climate change, and the environment. The forest fire risk zonation is generated utilizing remote sensing data, and Geographic Information System based on specified physical and socioeconomic factors. As part of the current study, a Geographical Information System is employed to determine forest fire risk based on predetermined physical and socioeconomic parameters. This study used three distinct models of fire risk zonation index namely FRI (Fire Risk Index), HFI (Hybrid Fire Index), and SFI (Structural Fire Index) to identify the zones in the study area under the risk of forest fires. The Indian state of Mizoram is categorized into five distinct hazard zones based on the probability of wildfire incidents. Fire alerts generated using risk models, and real-time hotspot datasets (forest fire spots) received from MODIS and USGS have been validated. According to the study’s findings, 18.84 km 2 of the study area is at low risk of forest fire, 11.072 km 2 is at moderate risk, and 5.38 km 2 is at high risk. The probability from each metric varies since the input and weightage of the different parameters vary from one another. SFI, therefore, therefore predicts a lower frequency of high-risk wildfire-prone zones than HFI and FRI. In this research, the coefficient of discrimination (R 2 ) is employed to assess the reliability of the projected fire indices being compared with real-time hot spots. Here, FRI possesses the highest accuracy (R 2 =0.892), HFI has moderate accuracy (R 2 =0.676), and FRI has the lowest accuracy (R 2 =0.629).
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".