Crop Evapotranspiration (ET) Estimation Models: A Review and Discussion of the Applicability and Limitations of ET Methods
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a review paper on existing methodologies to calculate crop evapotranspiration (ETc). We have attempted to present all the important ET estimation procedures to date starting from the simple empirical Blaney Criddle method to the complex Shuttleworth model. The common approach to calculate ETc is to estimate a reference crop ET rate (ETref) using weather variables from nearby weather station, and multiplying it by an appropriate crop coefficient (Kc). Recently, there have been attempts to calculate actual crop ET (ETa) directly without using Kc. The latter method is still in the developmental phase. This study reviews the existing literature on ET estimation and identifies research needs in the current methods and technology. The extension of the Shuttleworth model for hourly time step and the validity of the Irmak and Mutibwaa model at field level for various crops would be a good milestone for the one step ET estimation. Furthermore, there are indications that the development of a new variable canopy surface resistance (rc) model, which can be applicable for different crops at different climatic conditions, would be a good contribution in this field.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 it