MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401894700 · doi:10.3390/f15091493

Predicting Forest Fire Area Growth Rate Using an Ensemble Algorithm

2024· article· en· W4401894700 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Long Zhang, Changjiang Shi, Fuquan Zhang

Bibliographic record

VenueForests · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTerrainRandom forestHyperparameterCollinearityComputer scienceAlgorithmEnvironmental scienceStatisticsGeographyMathematicsCartographyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Due to its unique geographical and climatic conditions, the Liangshan Prefecture region is highly prone to large fires. There is an urgent need to study the growth rate of fire-burned areas to fill the research gap in this region. To address this issue, this study uses the Grey Wolf Optimizer (GWO) algorithm to optimize the hyperparameters in the eXtreme Gradient Boosting (XGBoost) model, constructing a GWO-XGBoost model. Finally, the optimized ensemble model (GWO-XGBoost) is used to create a fire growth rate warning map for the Liangshan Prefecture in Sichuan Province, China, filling the research gap in forest fire studies in this area. This study comprehensively selects factors such as monthly climate, monthly vegetation, terrain, and socio–economic aspects and incorporates monthly reanalysis data from forest fire assessment systems in Canada, the United States, and Australia as features to construct the forest fire dataset. After collinearity tests to filter redundant features and Pearson correlation analysis to explore features related to the burned area growth rate, the Synthetic Minority Oversampling Technique (SMOTE) is used to oversample the positive class samples. The GWO algorithm is used to optimize the hyperparameters in the XGBoost model, constructing the GWO-XGBoost model, which is then compared with XGBoost, Random Forest (RF), and Logistic Regression (LR) models. Model evaluation results showed that the GWO-XGBoost model, with an AUC value of 0.8927, is the best-performing model. Using the SHapley Additive exPlanations (SHAP) value analysis method to quantify the contribution of each influencing factor indicates that the Ignition Component (IC) value from the United States National Fire Danger Rating System contributes the most, followed by the average monthly temperature and the population density. The growth rate warning map results indicate that the southern part of the study area is the key fire prevention area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.783

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.220 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations15
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueForestsSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207