MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1603801414 · doi:10.3390/hydrology2020093

Evapotranspiration Trends Over the Eastern United States During the 20th Century

2015· article· en· W1603801414 on OpenAlexaff
Ryan J. Kramer, Lahouari Bounoua, Ping Zhang, Robert E. Wolfe, Thomas G. Huntington, Marc L. Imhoff, Kurtis J. Thome, Genevieve L. Noyce

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterU.S. Geological SurveyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsEvapotranspirationEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)ArchaeologyGeographyGeologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Most models evaluated by the Intergovernmental Panel for Climate change estimate projected increases in temperature and precipitation with rising atmospheric CO2 levels. Researchers have suggested that increases in CO2 and associated increases in temperature and precipitation may stimulate vegetation growth and increase evapotranspiration (ET), which acts as a cooling mechanism, and on a global scale, may slow the climate-warming trend. This hypothesis has been modeled under increased CO2 conditions with models of different vegetation-climate dynamics. The significance of this vegetation negative feedback, however, has varied between models. Here we conduct a century-scale observational analysis of the Eastern US water balance to determine historical evapotranspiration trends and whether vegetation greening has affected these trends. We show that precipitation has increased significantly over the twentieth century while runoff has not. We also show that ET has increased and vegetation growth is partially responsible.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.073

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations41
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrologySame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207