Modelling spatial patterns of forest fire occurrence in the Northwestern region of Vietnam
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest fires present a significant threat to the tropical forest ecosystem in the northwestern region of Vietnam. Our study aimed to assess the impacts of environmental factors on forest fire occurrence and to map forest fire probability for the whole region. The forest fire occurrence data over the period 2003–2016, environmental factors (climate, fuel condition, topography, and human activity), and the MaxEnt approach were used for this study. The MaxEnt model performed better than the random model (AUC>0.88). Climatic factors (especially climatic seasonality: annual temperature range (bio_07), isothermality (bio_03), and precipitation of warmest quarter (bio_18)) had the highest contribution to the model, followed by population density and elevation. In contrast, fuel condition (Land cover type) had a small contribution to the model. While medium, high, and very high probabilities of forest fire occurred at medium to high elevations (e.g., Dien Bien, Son La, and Lai Chau provinces) throughout southern to northern and western areas, very low and low probability concentrated southeastern areas at lower elevations (mainly in Hoa Bình province). Our results may be helpful references for fire managers and policymakers to establish more effective fire management strategies for the region's forest.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".