Improved logistic models of crown fire probability in Canadian conifer forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Crown fires are an ecologically necessary but hazardous process in conifer forests. Prediction of their behaviour in Canada has largely depended on the Canadian Forest Fire Behaviour Prediction System, in which fire weather indices drive primarily fixed fuel type models. The Crown Fire Initiation and Spread (CFIS) system presents a more flexible approach to predicting crown fire occurrence than fixed fuel type models. Aims Using a multi-decadal database of experimental fires carried out in conifer plots (1960–2019, n = 113), our aim was to develop updated models based on the CFIS system approach, fitting crown fire occurrence models to fire environment variables using logistic regression. Methods We tested alternative fuel moisture estimates and compared various model forms using repeated cross-validation. In two-storeyed stands, crown fire occurrence was defined as the involvement of lower canopy stratum fuels. Key results Final models based on wind speed, fuel strata gap, litter moisture and surface fuel consumption predicted crowning events correctly in up to 92% of cases in training data (89% in cross-validation). Conclusions and implications These new models offer improved accuracy and flexibility that will help users assess how competing environmental factors interact under different fuel treatments and wildfire scenarios.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".