New coupled model used inversely for reconstructing past terrestrial carbon storage from pollen data: validation of model using modern data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The knowledge of potential impacts of climate change on terrestrial vegetation is crucial to understand long‐term global carbon cycle development. Discrepancy in data has long existed between past carbon storage reconstructions since the Last Glacial Maximum by way of pollen, carbon isotopes, and general circulation model (GCM) analysis. This may be due to the fact that these methods do not synthetically take into account significant differences in climate distribution between modern and past conditions, as well as the effects of atmospheric CO 2 concentrations on vegetation. In this study, a new method to estimate past biospheric carbon stocks is reported, utilizing a new integrated ecosystem model (PCM) built on a physiological process vegetation model (BIOME4) coupled with a process‐based biospheric carbon model (DEMETER). The PCM was constrained to fit pollen data to obtain realistic estimates. It was estimated that the probability distribution of climatic parameters, as simulated by BIOME4 in an inverse process, was compatible with pollen data while DEMETER successfully simulated carbon storage values with corresponding outputs of BIOME4. The carbon model was validated with present‐day observations of vegetation biomes and soil carbon, and the inversion scheme was tested against 1491 surface pollen spectra sample sites procured in Africa and Eurasia. Results show that this method can successfully simulate biomes and related climates at most selected pollen sites, providing a coefficient of determination ( R ) of 0.83–0.97 between the observed and reconstructed climates, while also showing a consensus with an R ‐value of 0.90–0.96 between the simulated biome average terrestrial carbon variables and the available observations. The results demonstrate the reliability and feasibility of the climate reconstruction method and its potential efficiency in reconstructing past terrestrial carbon storage.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".