Active Fire Clustering and Spatiotemporal Dynamic Models for Forest Fire Management
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forest fires are increasingly destructive, contributing to significant ecological damage, carbon emissions, and economic losses. Monitoring these fires promptly and accurately, particularly by delineating fire perimeters, is critical for mitigating their impact. Satellite-based remote sensing, especially using active fire products from VIIRS and MODIS, has proven indispensable for real-time forest fire monitoring. Despite advancements, challenges remain in accurately clustering and delineating fire perimeters in a timely manner, as many existing methods rely on manual processing, resulting in delays. Active fire perimeter (AFP) and Timely Active Fire Progression (TAFP) models were developed which aim to be an automated approach for clustering active fire data points and delineating perimeters. The results demonstrated that the combined dataset achieved the highest matching rate of 85.13% for fire perimeters across all size classes, with a 95.95% clustering accuracy for fires ≥100 ha. However, the accuracy decreased for smaller fires. Overall, 1500 m radii with alpha values of 0.1 were found to be the most effective for fire perimeter delineation, particularly when applied at larger radii. The proposed models can play a critical role in improving operational responses by fire management agencies, helping to mitigate the destructive impact of forest fires more effectively.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".