Stochastic Behaviour of Directional Fire Spread: A Segmentation-Based Analysis of Experimental Burns
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Understanding the dynamics of fire propagation is essential in improving predictive models and developing effective fire management strategies. This study applies computer vision techniques to complement traditional fire behaviour modelling. We employ the Segment Anything Model to achieve the accurate segmentation of experimental fire videos, enabling the frame-by-frame segmentation of fire perimeters, quantification of the rate of spread in multiple directions, and explicit analysis of slope effects. Our laboratory experiments reveal that the ROS increases exponentially with slope, but with coefficients differing from those prescribed in the Canadian Fire Behaviour Prediction System, reflecting differences in field conditions. Complementary field data from prescribed burns in coniferous fuels (C-7) further demonstrate that slope effects vary under operational conditions, suggesting field-dependent dynamics not fully captured by existing deterministic models. Our experiments show that, even under controlled laboratory conditions, substantial variability in spread rate is observed, underscoring the inherent stochasticity of fire spread. Together, these findings highlight the value of vision-based perimeter extraction in generating precise spread data and reinforce the need for probabilistic modelling approaches that explicitly account for uncertainty and emergent dynamics in fire behaviour.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".