MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974379487 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0110407

Global Validation of a Process-Based Model on Vegetation Gross Primary Production Using Eddy Covariance Observations

2014· article· en· W1974379487 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Dan Liu, Wenwen Cai, Jiangzhou Xia, Wenjie Dong, Guangsheng Zhou, Yang Chen, Haicheng Zhang, Wenping Yuan

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central UniversitiesNational High-tech Research and Development ProgramNatural Resources CanadaBiological and Environmental ResearchProgram for New Century Excellent Talents in UniversityNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsIbisEddy covariancePrimary productionEnvironmental scienceBiosphereStandard deviationMarkov chain Monte CarloMathematicsAtmospheric sciencesStatisticsFlux (metallurgy)ClimatologyMeteorologyMonte Carlo methodGeographyPhysicsEcosystemEcologyBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Gross Primary Production (GPP) is the largest flux in the global carbon cycle. However, large uncertainties in current global estimations persist. In this study, we examined the performance of a process-based model (Integrated BIosphere Simulator, IBIS) at 62 eddy covariance sites around the world. Our results indicated that the IBIS model explained 60% of the observed variation in daily GPP at all validation sites. Comparison with a satellite-based vegetation model (Eddy Covariance-Light Use Efficiency, EC-LUE) revealed that the IBIS simulations yielded comparable GPP results as the EC-LUE model. Global mean GPP estimated by the IBIS model was 107.50±1.37 Pg C year(-1) (mean value ± standard deviation) across the vegetated area for the period 2000-2006, consistent with the results of the EC-LUE model (109.39±1.48 Pg C year(-1)). To evaluate the uncertainty introduced by the parameter Vcmax, which represents the maximum photosynthetic capacity, we inversed Vcmax using Markov Chain-Monte Carlo (MCMC) procedures. Using the inversed Vcmax values, the simulated global GPP increased by 16.5 Pg C year(-1), indicating that IBIS model is sensitive to Vcmax, and large uncertainty exists in model parameterization.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.045

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations31
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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