Comparison of observed and general circulation model derived continental subsurface heat flux in the Northern Hemisphere
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heat fluxes in the continental subsurface were estimated from general circulation model (GCM) simulations of the climate of the last millennium and compared to those obtained from subsurface geothermal data. Since GCMs have bottom boundary conditions (BBCs) that are less than 10 m deep and thus may be thermodynamically restricted in the continental subsurface, we used an idealized land surface model (LSM) with a very deep BBC to estimate the potential for realistic subsurface heat storage in the absence of bottom boundary constraints. Results indicate that there is good agreement between observed fluxes and GCM simulated fluxes for the 1780–1980 period when the GCM simulated temperatures are coupled to the LSM with deep BBC. These results emphasize the importance of placing a deep BBC in GCM soil components for the proper simulation of the overall continental heat budget. In addition, the agreement between the LSM surface fluxes and the borehole temperature reconstructed fluxes lends additional support to the overall quality of the GCM (ECHO‐G) paleoclimatic simulations.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".