Determination of ecosystem carbon-stock distributions in the flux footprint of an eddy-covariance tower in a coastal forest in British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An important consideration when interpreting eddy-covariance (EC) flux-tower measurements is the spatial distribution of forest land surface cover and soil type within the EC flux-tower footprint. At many EC flux-tower sites, there is a range of geospatial data available with the ability to estimate the spatial distribution of forest land cover and soils. Developing methods that utilize multiple geospatial data sets will result in more thorough estimates of ecosystem C stock distributions. The objective of this study was to develop, apply, and validate methods to obtain comprehensive estimates of the spatial distribution of ecosystem C stock components from live-tree, detritus, and soil pools within an EC flux-tower footprint. First, a set of geospatial data sets was collected and assessed for its predictive ability for the measured aboveground C stocks. Next, large tree and snag aboveground C stocks were estimated using two methods: (i) a geospatial regression model, and (ii) most similar neighbor (k-MSN) spatial prediction methodology, and the results were compared with those of a multiple linear regression model using light detection and ranging (LiDAR) data alone. Finally, we applied the spatial prediction methodology to estimate the spatial distribution of other C stock components (including soil C and woody debris).
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".