Comparison of Perimeter Delineation Methods for Remote Sensing Fire Spot Data in Near/Ultra-Real-Time Applications
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest fires cause extensive damage to ecosystems, biodiversity, and human property, posing significant challenges for emergency response and resource management. The accurate and timely delineation of forest fire perimeters is crucial for mitigating these impacts. In this study, methods for delineating forest fire perimeters using near-real-time (NRT) remote sensing data are evaluated. Specifically, the performance of various algorithms—buffer, concave, convex, and combination methods—using VIIRS and MODIS datasets is assessed. It was found that increasing concave α values improves the matching percentage with reference areas but also increases the commission error (CE), indicating overestimation. The results demonstrate that combination methods generally achieve higher matching percentages, but also higher CEs. These findings highlight the trade-off between improved perimeter accuracy and the risk of overestimation. The insights gained are significant for optimizing sensor data alignment techniques, thereby enhancing rapid response, resource allocation, and evacuation planning in fire management. This research is the first to employ multiple algorithms in both individual and synergistic approaches with NRT or ultra-real-time (URT) active fire data, providing a critical foundation for future studies aimed at improving the accuracy and timeliness of forest fire perimeter assessments. Such advancements are essential for effective disaster management and mitigation strategies.
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 | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".