Impacts of Spatial Partitioning in Hydroecological Models: Predicting Grassland Productivity with RHESSys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Environmental models constructed with a spatial domain require choices about the representation of space. Decisions in the adaptation of a spatial data model can have significant consequences on the ability to predict environmental function as a result of changes to levels of aggregation of input parameters and scaling issues in the processes being modelled. In some cases, it is possible to construct a systematic framework to evaluate the uncertainty in predictions using different spatial models; in other cases, the realm of possibilities plus the complexity of the environmental model in question may inhibit numeric uncertainty estimates. We demonstrate a range of potential spatial data models to parameterize a landscape‐level hydroecological model (RHESSys). The effects of data model choice are illustrated, both in terms of input parameter distributions and resulting ecophysiological predictions. Predicted productivity varied widely, as a function of both the number of modelling units, and of arbitrary decisions such as the origin of a raster grid. It is therefore important to use as much information about the modelled environment as possible. Combinations of adaptive methods to evaluate distributions of input data, plus knowledge of dominant controls of ecosystem processes, can help evaluate potential representations. In this case, variance‐based delineation of vegetation patches is shown to improve the ability to intelligently choose a patch distribution that minimizes the number of patches, while maintaining a degree of aggregation that does not overly bias the predictions.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".