MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

A Crowdsensing-based Framework to Enhance Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Risk Assessment

2025· article· W4415744456 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nima Shirzad‐Ghaleroudkhani, Asdrubal Cheng Cen, Daniel Jozi, Mohammad Afaghi, Mustafa Gül

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Language
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsInterface (matter)Satellite imagerySatelliteClimate changeFire detectionWildland–urban interfaceRisk assessment

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

As climate change continues to intensify, various regions across Alberta are increasingly vulnerable to wildfires that pose significant threats to infrastructure near forested areas, commonly referred to as Wildland-Urban Interface (WUI) fires. According to statistics from the Canadian National Forestry Database, more than 8,000 wildfire incidents are recorded annually, affecting over 2.1 million hectares on average. This growing risk highlights the urgent need for an enhanced analytical approach capable of estimating fire dynamics—specifically, parameters such as the rate of spread (ROS) and head fire intensity (HFI)—at a localized scale. The research introduces a novel framework designed to improve fire behavior assessment by leveraging ground-based crowdsourced video data. This real-time visual input aids in identifying micro-scale fuel conditions critical for accurate predictions. In areas where such ground data is sparse, satellite imagery is analyzed to supplement fuel information. Advanced computer vision techniques, including AI-driven object detection and image segmentation, are utilized to classify and extract relevant fuel characteristics from both video and satellite sources. A case study focusing on the Kinsmen Sport Centre in Edmonton was conducted, using crowdsensed footage captured during summer and fall to estimate ROS and HFI values. The findings illustrate how integrating crowdsensing with AI tools offers a promising path toward obtaining precise, current fuel data, supporting proactive strategies for managing wildfire hazards in WUI zones.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicFire effects on ecosystems→French-language works237,207→