Reliability of fire danger forecasts for Czech agricultural and forestry landscapes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The increasing threat of fire caused by ongoing climate change requires accurate and timely prediction for the effective management of extreme fire situations. The limited research on the connection between fire danger metrics and the occurrence of wildfires in the forested and agricultural landscapes of the Czech Republic underscores the need to better understand how to properly quantify fire danger in the context of Central Europe. This study focused on assessing the accuracy of fire danger prediction with respect to the number of wildfires in different geographic regions of the Czech Republic and provided new insights into central European fire ecology. Results We found that the fire season in the Czech Republic has two peaks, in spring and summer, with regional differences in the total number of wildfires. Analyses of fire danger via the Canadian Fire Weather Index (FWI) and Australian Forest Fire Danger Index (FFDI) for the years 2018–2022 revealed that the IFS numerical weather prediction model is the most suitable for conditions in the Czech Republic. A linear regression model showed a high predictive capability for the total number of wildfires in the Czech Republic, with an observed R -squared value of 0.81 and a mean absolute error (MAE) of 5.19 wildfires with a 95% confidence interval (CI) of 4.94–5.44. Additionally, the second model, which utilized a linear model with random effects to account for regional variability, had an R -squared value of 0.34 and an MAE of 1 wildfire (95% CI ± 3), indicating that the inclusion of regional correction coefficients (random effects) enhanced the prediction accuracy. Conclusions This study provides key insights into fire danger prediction in relation to the number of wildfires. With this model, it is possible to predict how many wildfires may occur at specific values of the FWI and FFDI in individual regions (NUTS 3) of the Czech Republic. This information can be used for more effective readiness planning for human resources and fire equipment while also contributing to the enhancement of general knowledge in the field of fire science in the context of central Europe.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".