Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI) system, even though originally developed and calibrated for an upland jack pine forest, is used globally to estimate fire danger for any fire environment. However, for some environments, such as peatlands, the applicability of the FWI in its current form, is often questioned. In this study, we replaced the original moisture codes of the FWI with hydrological estimates resulting from the assimilation of satellite-based L-band passive microwave observations into a peatland-specific land surface model. In a conservative approach that maintains the integrity of the original FWI structure, the distributions of the hydrological estimates were first matched to those of the corresponding original moisture codes before replacement. The resulting adapted FWI, hereafter called PEAT-FWI, was evaluated using fire occurrences over boreal peatlands from 2010 through 2018. Adapting the FWI with model- and satellite-based hydrological information was found to be beneficial to estimate fire danger, especially when replacing the deeper moisture codes of the FWI. For late-season fires, further adaptations of the fine fuel moisture code show even more improvement due to the fact that late-season fires are more hydrologically driven. The proposed PEAT-FWI should enable improved monitoring of fire risk in boreal peatlands.
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 | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.330 | 0.253 |
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".