MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412995466 · doi:10.3390/fire8080308

Quantifying Wildfire Dynamics Through Spatio-Temporal Clustering and Remote Sensing Metrics: The 2023 Quebec Case Study

2025· article· en· W4412995466 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tuğrul Urfalı, Abdurrahman Eymen

Bibliographic record

VenueFire · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCluster analysisRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceGeographyEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceCartographyArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wildfires have become increasingly frequent and destructive environmental hazards, especially in boreal ecosystems facing prolonged droughts and temperature extremes. This study presents an integrated spatio-temporal framework that combines Spatio-Temporal Density-Based Spatial Clustering of Applications with Noise (ST-DBSCAN), Fire Radiative Power (FRP), and the differenced Normalized Burn Ratio (ΔNBR) to characterize the dynamics and ecological impacts of large-scale wildfires, using the extreme 2023 Quebec fire season as a case study. The analysis of 80,228 VIIRS fire detections resulted in 19 distinct clusters across four fire zones. Validation against the National Burned Area Composite (NBAC) showed high spatial agreement in densely burned areas, with Intersection over Union (IoU) scores reaching 62.6%. Gaussian Process Regression (GPR) revealed significant non-linear relationships between FRP and key fire behavior metrics. Higher mean FRP was associated with both longer durations and greater burn severity. While FRP was also linked to faster spread rates, this relationship varied by zone. Notably, Fire Zone 2 exhibited the most severe ecological impact, with 83.8% of the area classified as high-severity burn. These findings demonstrate the value of integrating spatial clustering, radiative intensity, and post-fire vegetation damage into a unified analytical framework. Unlike traditional methods, this approach enables scalable, hypothesis-driven assessment of fire behavior, supporting improved fire management, ecosystem recovery planning, and climate resilience efforts in fire-prone regions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.032
Threshold uncertainty score0.065

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFireSame topicFire effects on ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207