Uncertainty of upland soil carbon sink estimate for Finland
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Changes in the soil carbon stock of Finnish upland soils were quantified using forest inventory data, forest statistics, biomass models, litter turnover rates, and the Yasso07 soil model. Uncertainty in the estimated stock changes was assessed by combining model and sampling errors associated with the various data sources into variance–covariance matrices that allowed computationally efficient error propagation in the context of Yasso07 simulations. In sensitivity analysis, we found that the uncertainty increased drastically as a result of adding random year-to-year variation to the litter input. Such variation is smoothed out when using periodic inventory data with constant biomass models and turnover rates. Model errors (biomass, litter, understorey vegetation) and the systematic error of total drain had a marginal effect on the uncertainty regarding soil carbon stock change. Most of the uncertainty appears to be related to uncaptured annual variation in litter amounts. This is due to fact that variation in the slopes of litter input trends dictates the uncertainty of soil carbon stock change. If we assume that there is annual variation only in foliage and fine root litter rates and that this variation is less than 10% from year to year, then we can claim that Finnish upland forest soils have accumulated carbon during the first Kyoto period (2008–2012).
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".