MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392659186 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-17121

Early warning meteorological fire danger over Central Europe

2024· preprint· en· W4392659186 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Carlos C. DaCamara, Mariana Oliveira, Sílvia A. Nunes, Ricardo M. Trigo, Isabel F. Trigo

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWarning systemEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyClimatologyHistoryGeographyComputer scienceGeologyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Meteorological fire danger has been steadily increasing over Europe in the last decades, not only over the Mediterranean South that is recurrently affected by extreme fire weather and where the largest fire events take place, but also over Central, Eastern and Northern countries that are facing more and more events. The two most recent examples are the devastating fires in Rhodes and northern Greece in 2023, and those in France, Spain, Portugal, Slovenia and Czechia in 2022 when the total of burnt area almost reached the record value of 2017. The increase in severity of fire events is of major concern for all European countries, but special attention should be devoted to Central Europe where large fires, usually driven by the compound effect of droughts and heatwaves (e.g., 2018, 2022), are posing new challenges at the levels of fire management and fire forecasting.We present a statistical model of energy released by wildfires that allows calibrating the Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI) over three major land cover types (forest, shrub, and agriculture) covering an area encompassing Central Europe (3.5º-17ºE and 45º-62ºN). The model consists of a doubly truncated lognormal body distribution with generalized Pareto tails (DaCamara et al., 2023) that incorporates FWI as a covariate of its parameters. For each land cover type, the model is fitted to the set of observed values (from 2001 to 2022) of the logarithm of Fire Radiative Power associated to hotspots as detected by the MODIS instrument on-board Terra and Aqua platforms. For each model, goodness of fit is evaluated by using the Anderson-Darling test to assess the strength of the evidence against the null hypothesis that the sample follows the distribution.The fitted models allow estimating for each land cover type the probability of exceedance of a predefined threshold of log(FRP) for each day and grid point. Five classes of fire danger (low, moderate, high, very high, and extreme) for each land cover type are then defined by analyzing the spatial and temporal variability of the distribution of pixels among classes as well as the distribution among classes of FRP associated to hotspots, such that classes of higher fire danger tend to concentrate in the fire season, and fires with high values of FRP occur in pixels classified in the classes of high, very high and extreme danger. The procedure is further validated by examining several case studies that were chosen because of unusually intense fire events or because of the high number of occurrences. This work was supported by EUMETSAT Satellite Application Facility on Land Surface Analysis (LSA SAF) and by Instituto Dom Luiz (IDL), a research unit financed with national funds (PIDDAC) by FCT (UIDB/50019/2020). References: DaCamara, C. C., Libonati, R., Nunes, S. A., de Zea Bermudez, P., & Pereira, J. M. C. (2023). Global-scale statistical modelling of the radiative power released by vegetation fires using a doubly truncated lognormal body distribution with generalized Pareto tails. Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and Its Applications, 625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physa.2023.129049

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.505
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.221
Teacher spread0.211 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→