MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7077158666 · doi:10.5066/p1fg5lsu

Code for Projected Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (CFFDRS) metrics within Fire Danger Rating Areas in Alaska (1980–2099) (version 1.0.0)

2025· other· en· W7077158666 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueUSGS DOI Tool Production Environment · 2025
Typeother
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicGeochemistry and Geologic Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRating systemPython (programming language)TaigaClimate changeFire protectionProcess (computing)Fire regime

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Effective future fire planning and decision-making in Alaska requires accessible, interpretable, and locally relevant climate data to anticipate fire danger. To meet this need, we utilized an existing dataset of projected fire danger metrics from the Canadian Forest Fire Danger Rating System (Young et al. 2025). This dataset contains daily projections from 1980 through 2099 for key metrics including Buildup Index, Drought Code, Duff Moisture Code, Fine Fuel Moisture Code, Fire Weather Index, and Initial Spread Index. These projections were generated using historical data and outputs from four climate models, all downscaled to a 0.25-degree resolution. We developed Python and R code to process and visualize the data, producing summary tables, time series plots, and maps. Outputs primarily focused on 16 Fire Danger Rating Areas in Alaska, which correspond to the boreal forest extent covered by the input dataset. The code provides a transparent and reproducible methodology, enabling the generation of customized products that deliver actionable fire danger insights to support fire planning and management under future climate scenarios.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.250
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUSGS DOI Tool Production EnvironmentSame topicGeochemistry and Geologic MappingFrench-language works237,207