MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Fire Danger Characterization in Italy: Mitigating the Impact on Real Time Operation of the Power System

2024· article· en· W4404057126 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Filippo D’Amico, Elena Collino, Francesca Viterbo, Riccardo Bonanno, Simone Talomo, Chiara Vergine, Francesco Pietrocola, Michele de Nigris

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicFire dynamics and safety research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPower (physics)Characterization (materials science)Computer scienceEnvironmental scienceForensic engineeringEngineeringMaterials science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildfires are highly disruptive events for the continuity of the electricity system, as they can directly affect electrical infrastructures, or they need transmission overhead lines to be deactivated for allowing firefighters to deal with the flames. They are also events that are extremely hard to forecast, as they mainly need human actions (or negligence) for ignition. Fire weather indices compute wildfire danger from meteorological data, thus allowing stakeholders to take preventive measures where there is a high fire spread risk. In this paper, the Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI) has been used to assess daily wildfire danger over the Italian territory for the past decades, using as input the high-resolution reanalysis MERIDA HRES OI, developed by RSE S.p.A. MERIDA HRES OI is a gridded meteorological dataset at hourly resolution covering Italy, with a 4km spatial resolution. It is a reconstruction of the past meteorological conditions using a numerical weather model and integrating experimental data through Optimal Interpolation. The FWI dataset obtained from MERIDA HRES has been tested against the EFFIS Burned Area Dataset to assess its accuracy in representing past fire-prone weather, in which wildfires ignited and spread. This analysis shows that the dataset correctly classifies more than 80% of the wildfire events in the “high” danger class or above. The study on the FWI reanalysis dataset also allowed for the development of an FWI-based wildfire danger forecasting system, currently being tested in an operational environment. A test case study is discussed to showcase the accuracy at different lead times of the FWI forecasting system prototype.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.805
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire dynamics and safety researchFrench-language works237,207