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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0090.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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