Evaluating the Drought Code for lowland taiga of Interior Alaska using eddy covariance measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background The Drought Code (DC) of the Canadian Fire Weather Index System (CFWIS) has been intuitively regarded by fire managers in Alaska, USA, as poorly representing the moisture content in the forest floor in lowland taiga forests on permafrost soils. Aims The aim of this study was to evaluate the DC using its own framework of water balance as cumulative additions of daily precipitation and substractions of actual evaporation. Methods We used eddy covariance measurements (EC) from three flux towers in Interior Alaska as a benchmark of natural evaporation. Key results The DC water balance model overpredicted drought for all 14 site-years that we analysed. Errors in water balance cumulated to 109 mm by the end of the season, which was 54% of the soil water storage capacity of the DC model. Median daily water balance was 6.3 times lower than that measured by EC. Conclusions About half the error in the model was due to correction of precipitation for canopy effects. The other half was due to dependence of the actual evaporation rate on the proportional ‘fullness’ of soil water storage in the DC model. Implications Fire danger situational awareness is improved by ignoring the DC in the CFWIS for boreal forests occurring on permafrost.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".