MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414053898 · doi:10.1175/waf-d-25-0069.1

Comparative Analysis of Ensemble and Deterministic Models for Fire Weather Index (FWI) System Forecasting

2025· article· en· W4414053898 on OpenAlex
Shu Chen, Piyush Jain, Elizabeth Ramsey, Jack Chen, Mike Flannigan

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueWeather and Forecasting · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicEnergy Load and Power Forecasting
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaNatural Resources CanadaCanadian Forest ServiceThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnsemble forecastingLead timeForecast skillEnsemble averageIndex (typography)Numerical weather predictionForecast verificationGlobal Forecast System

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Accurate fire weather forecasting is essential for effective wildfire management, particularly in regions increasingly affected by extreme fire activity such as British Columbia and Alberta, Canada. This study evaluates the predictive performance of three ensemble forecasting systems—the Ensemble Prediction System (ENS), the Global Ensemble Forecast System (GEFS), and the Canadian Global Ensemble Prediction System (GEPS)—and one deterministic model (High Resolution Forecast, HRES)—in forecasting components of the Canadian fire weather index (FWI) system with 1–15 days lead time during the 2021–23 wildfire seasons. Using ERA5 reanalysis as reference datasets, forecast skill was assessed using mean absolute error (MAE), continuous ranked probability score (CRPS), and precision-recall area under the curve (PR-AUC) metrics. Results show that ENS consistently demonstrates superior performance across all FWI components and weather inputs, with lower MAE and CRPS values across all the forecast lead times. A super ensemble combining all ensemble members from ENS, GEFS, and GEPS further improves long-range forecast reliability. Although deterministic forecasts outperform individual ensemble members, they are generally surpassed by ensemble-mean and ensemble-median forecasts at lead times greater than 5 days. The skill of deterministic forecasts also declines more rapidly with lead time and fails to quantify forecast uncertainty, despite their higher spatial resolution. These findings highlight the operational benefits of incorporating ensemble forecasts into fire management decision-making. This study also emphasizes the importance of overwintering adjustments and ensemble size in forecast skill and provides insights for improving fire weather prediction systems. Significance Statement Accurate fire danger forecasts support timely wildfire response and planning. This study evaluates the performance of three leading ensemble weather forecasting systems in predicting fire weather conditions across western Canada. It also compares the ensemble forecasts with the deterministic forecasts, the latter being more commonly used in operational fire management. The results show that ensemble-based fire weather forecasts can provide more reliable predictions, especially under high-risk conditions. By highlighting the strengths of ensemble systems, this work supports improvements in fire weather forecasting practices and helps inform operational decision-making in wildfire management.

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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.226
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.210 · 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