MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4415815489 · doi:10.5558/tfc2025-015

History and overview of research and development for Ontario’s FireGUARD decision support system for appropriate response

2025· article· en· W4415815489 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Colin B. McFayden, Den Boychuk, Jordan Evens, Darren McLarty, Aaron Stacey, D R Leonard, Jerry A. Shields

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFire effects on ecosystems
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Natural Resources and ForestryCanadian Forest Service
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDecision support systemWork (physics)Decision treeDevelopment (topology)Decision analysisDisaster response

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Research and development for a real-time wildfire decision support system was undertaken to support appropriate response decision-making in Ontario, Canada. We describe the context, history, requirements, research and development process, and components of FireGUARD (Fire Growth under Uncertainty for Appropriate Response Decision Support) and show examples of its prototype products. The work was a collaborative effort between researchers, specialists, and fire management experts. FireGUARD prototype outputs include a weather forecast and high-resolution maps of burn probability out to 14 days, fuel type, impact, and risk. Additional uses of include triaging multiple new fires, prioritizing scarce suppression resources, and large fire management. FireGUARD was very useful and remains in demand; its success led to further decision-support initiatives.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
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: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.300

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.003

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.256 · 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
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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