Automatic detection of fire smoke using artificial neural networks and threshold approaches applied to avhrr imagery. Geoscience and Remote Sensing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract—In this study, satellite-based remote sensing techniques were developed for identifying smoke from forest fires. Both artificial neural networks (NN) and multithreshold techniques were explored for application with imagery from the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) aboard NOAA satellites. The NN was designed such that it does not only classify a scene into smoke, cloud, or clear background, but also generates continuous outputs representing the mixture portions of these objects. While the NN approach offers many advantages, it is time consuming for application over large areas. A multithreshold algorithm was thus developed as well. The two approaches may be employed separately or in combination depending on the size of an image and smoke conditions. The methods were evaluated in terms of Euclidean distance between the outputs of the NN classification, using error matrices, visual inspection, and comparisons of classified smoke images with fire hot spots. They were applied to process daily AVHRR images acquired across Canada. The results obtained in the 1998 fire season were analyzed and compared with fire hot spots and TOMS-based aerosol index data. Reasonable correspondence was found, but the signals of smoke detected by TOMS and AVHRR are quite different but complementary to each other. In general, AVHRR is most sensitive to low, dense smoke plumes located near fires, whereas smoke detected by TOMS is dispersed, thin, elevated, and further away from fires. Index Terms—AVHRR, classification, fire, neural networks, smoke.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".