MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

An Overview of Terra Mission Results Related to the Carbon Cycle

2009· article· en· W2049456504 on OpenAlexaff
Marc L. Imhoff, Robert E. Wolfe, David J. Diner, Mark Chopping, Ralph A. Kahn, V. V. Salomonson, J. C. Gille, J. R. Drummond, David Edwards, Norm Loeb, Bruce A. Wielicki, Michael J. Abrams, Bjorn T. Eng, Si‐Chee Tsay, K.J. Ranson

Bibliographic record

VenueGeography Compass · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersNASA HeadquartersGoddard Space Flight CenterNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsCarbon cycleEnvironmental scienceObservatoryCryosphereAtmosphere (unit)Earth system scienceVegetation (pathology)Remote sensingEarth observationEarth scienceMeteorologyGeographyEcosystemSatelliteGeologyOceanographyEngineeringEcologySea ice

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Launched in December 1999 as the Earth Observing System's flagship observatory, the Terra Mission (formerly EOS AM‐1) carries a suite of five instruments that collect comprehensive global measurements of earth's atmosphere, cryosphere, lands, and oceans. One of the mission's science goals is the collection of data that will enable a better quantitative understanding of earth's carbon cycle through direct observation of atmospheric constituents and the provision of spatially explicit information about biophysical surface properties useful for modeling. In this article, highlights of the mission's use of five main instruments (ASTER, CERES, MISR, MODIS, and MOPITT) to address various aspects of the carbon cycle are reviewed, using examples of earth's photosynthetic production on land, vegetation structure and ecosystem response, and the extent and frequency of fires and their contribution of aerosols and carbon emissions to the atmosphere.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.819
Threshold uncertainty score0.395

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeography CompassSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207