Calculating fire danger of cured grasslands in temperate climates – the elements of the Grassland Fire Index (GLFI)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Increasing extreme weather events due to climate change require updated environmental monitoring and prediction systems in Germany. Aim The Grassland Fire Index (GLFI), developed by the German Meteorological Service ~15 years ago for temperate climates, was revised to improve fire-danger predictions during the fire season. Our paper gives insight into the new model version. Methods The former fire-behaviour core, i.e. Fosberg’s Fire Weather Index (FWI), is replaced by the standardised fire-reaction intensity, a different fuel-moisture of extinction term, and a replica of the fire-spread rate of the Canadian FFBP-System. A standardised ease-of-ignition index is added as a measure of ignition success. The fire module is supplied with diurnal dead-grass fuel-moisture calculations based on the water-budget and energy-balance concept. Key results The GLFI output is compared with diurnal fuel-moisture measurements and results of Wotton’s Grass-Fuel-Moisture model, Fosberg’s FWI, and Cheney’s rate of spread equation. The GLFI computes periods with a high fuel moisture more realistically, whereas it exceeds Cheney’s rate-of-fire spread systematically at lower wind speeds, which leads to higher danger ratings during calm-air conditions (as requested by users). Conclusions and Implications The GLFI estimates dead-fuel moisture and fire danger on open, horizontal topography according to the current scientific level. Model extensions are necessary to run the model on complex topography under varying greenness and occasional frost conditions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".