Mapping the distance between fire hazard and disaster for communities in Canadian forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Communities interspersed throughout the Canadian wildland are threatened by fires that have become bigger and more frequent in some parts of the country in recent decades. Identifying the fireshed (source area) and pathways from which wildland fire may ignite and spread from the landscape to a community is crucial for risk-reduction strategy and planning. We used outputs from a fire simulation model, including fire polygons and rate of spread, to map firesheds, fire pathways and corridors and spread distances for 1980 communities in the forested areas of Canada. We found fireshed sizes are larger in the north, where the mean distances between ecumene and fireshed perimeters were greater than 10 km. The Rayleigh Z test indicated that simulated fires around a large proportion of communities show significant directional trends, and these trends are stronger in the Boreal Plains and Shields than in the Rocky Mountain area. The average distance from which fire, when spreading at the maximum simulated rate, could reach the community perimeter was approximately 5, 12 and 18 km in 1, 2 and 3 days, respectively. The average daily spread distances increased latitudinally, from south to north. Spread distances were the shortest in the Pacific Maritime, Atlantic Maritime and Boreal Plains Ecozones, implying lower rates of spread compared to the rest of the country. The fire corridors generated from random ignitions and from ignitions predicted from local fire history differ, indicating that factors other than fuel (e.g. fire weather, ignition pattern) play a significant role in determining the direction that fires burn into a community.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".