Global seasonal prediction of fire danger
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The European Centre for Medium range weather forecast (ECMWF) on behalf of the Copernicus Emergency Management Service (CEMS) has recently widened the fire danger data offering in the Climate Data Store (CDS) to include a set of fire danger forecasts with lead times up to 7 months. The dataset incorporates fire danger indices for three different models developed in Canada, United States and Australia. The indices are calculated using ECMWF Seasonal Forecasting System 5 (SEAS5) and verified against the relevant reanalysis of fire danger based on the ECMWF Re-Analysis (ERA5). The data set is made openly available for the period 1981 to 2023 and will be updated regularly providing a resource to assess the predictability of fire weather at the seasonal time scale. The data set complements the availability of seasonal forecast provided by the Copernicus Emergency Management Service in real time.A preliminary analysis shows that globally anomalous conditions for fire weather can be predicted with confidence 1 month ahead. In some regions the prediction can extend to 2 months ahead. In most situations beyond this horizon, forecasts do not show more skill than climatology. However an extended predictability window, up to 6-7 months ahead is possible when anomalous fire weather is the results of large scale phenomena such as the El Niño Southern Oscillation and the Indian Ocean Dipole, often conducive of extensive fire burning in regions such as Indonesia and Australia.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".