Modélisation de l'évapotranspiration réelle à l'échelle régionale pour des bassins versants situés dans la forêt boréale
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is a known fact that evapotranspiration (ET) varies spatially and temporally and is affected by local and regional factors such as topography, soil properties, and vegetation. As the objective of this study is to model the spatial distribution of actual ET in a boreal ecosystem, a spatially distributed hydrological model employing the Priestley–Taylor approach was used. Spatial and temporal variations of the radiative fluxes at the study site were carefully modelled, as observed fluxes were scarce. Moreover, two modelling scenarios, each based on a different combination of input data sources, were examined. Observed flows were used to calibrate the hydrological model, and acceptable results were obtained. Results show that the modelling of actual ET is affected more by the spatially distributed precipitation than by radiative fluxes. This does not corroborate the experimental results of a previous study carried out over the same area on specific sites. However, the present study differs from the previous one, as the results are obtained at the regional scale.Key words: evapotranspiration, boreal forest, hydrological model, spatial and temporal heterogeneity.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".