Comparison of two‐layer and single‐layer canopy models with Lagrangian and <i>K</i>‐theory approaches in modelling evaporation from forests
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The near‐field effect on flux calculation was examined using two approaches: (1) The performance of a Lagrangian two‐layer canopy model was compared with a K ‐theory two‐layer canopy model and a K ‐theory single‐layer canopy model; and (2) the near‐field resistance was placed in series with aerodynamic resistance in the Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS). The first approach was tested using flux data measured from a boreal aspen forest because it had a thick understorey canopy. The second approach was tested using the aspen forest and a Douglas fir forest. Results from both approaches confirmed that the difference between simulations from K ‐theory and the Lagrangian evaporation models was small due to the strong control by stomatal conductance. Furthermore, the two‐layer canopy models were inferior to the single canopy model in the calculation of the sensible and latent heat fluxes above the forest. Copyright © 2001 Royal Meteorological Society
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".