| Title |
Modelling of fire count data: fire disaster risk in Ghana
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
SpringerPlus, December 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s40064-015-1585-3 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Caleb Boadi, Simon K. Harvey, Agyapomaa Gyeke-dako |
| Abstract |
Stochastic dynamics involved in ecological count data require distribution fitting procedures to model and make informed judgments. The study provides empirical research, focused on the provision of an early warning system and a spatial graph that can detect societal fire risks. It offers an opportunity for communities, organizations, risk managers, actuaries and governments to be aware of, and understand fire risks, so that they will increase the direct tackling of the threats posed by fire. Statistical distribution fitting method that best helps identify the stochastic dynamics of fire count data is used. The aim is to provide a fire-prediction model and fire spatial graph for observed fire count data. An empirical probability distribution model is fitted to the fire count data and compared to the theoretical probability distribution of the stochastic process of fire count data. The distribution fitted to the fire frequency count data helps identify the class of models that are exhibited by the fire and provides time leading decisions. The research suggests that fire frequency and loss (fire fatalities) count data in Ghana are best modelled with a Negative Binomial Distribution. The spatial map of observed fire frequency and fatality measured over 5 years (2007-2011) offers in this study a first regional assessment of fire frequency and fire fatality in Ghana. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Ghana | 1 | 50% |
| Unknown | 1 | 50% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 2 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 10 | 25% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 8 | 20% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Lecturer | 2 | 5% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 3 | 8% |
| Unknown | 13 | 33% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Social Sciences | 6 | 15% |
| Environmental Science | 3 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 2 | 5% |
| Computer Science | 2 | 5% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 2 | 5% |
| Other | 10 | 25% |
| Unknown | 15 | 38% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 19 January 2016.
All research outputs
#13,758,856
of 22,836,570 outputs
Outputs from SpringerPlus
#723
of 1,849 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#193,994
of 390,618 outputs
Outputs of similar age from SpringerPlus
#48
of 197 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,836,570 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,849 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.7. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 390,618 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 49th percentile – i.e., 49% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 197 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.