MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1975223284 · doi:10.4296/cwrj3502187

Application of the Versatile Soil Moisture Budget Model to Estimate Evaporation from Prairie Grassland

2010· article· en· W1975223284 on OpenAlexvenueaboutno aff
Masaki Hayashi, John F. Jackson, Ligang Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriques · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceEvaporationHydrology (agriculture)AridGrasslandWater contentSoil sciencePotential evaporationMoistureVegetation (pathology)GroundwaterGeologyAgronomyMeteorologyGeotechnical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Coupled hydrological modelling of land surface and groundwater is an effective tool for water resources management. The Versatile Soil Moisture Budget (VSMB) model is a simple land-surface model that has been widely used in the Canadian prairies to simulate soil moisture conditions of cropland. Its algorithm is suitable for coupling with a groundwater model, but VSMB has not been rigorously tested for grassland as such. The accuracy of simulated grassland evaporation was evaluated against three years of field data collected using the eddy-covariance technique near Calgary, Alberta. The current version of VSMB substantially underestimated evaporation. After modifications on growth stage parameters, radiation scheme, the drying curve function representing the ratio of actual to potential evaporation, and soil-column length, simulated evaporation was well within the error margin of observed values. In the semi-arid environment of the test site, simulated evaporation was relatively insensitive to soil water storage parameters but was sensitive to the drying curve function and soil-column length.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.879
Threshold uncertainty score0.241

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.193
Teacher spread0.187 · 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

Citations29
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressources hydriquesSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207