The DigiBog peatland development model 1: rationale, conceptual model, and hydrological basis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Using a literature review, we argue that new models of peatland development are needed. Many existing models do not account for potentially important ecohydrological feedbacks, and/or ignore spatial structure and heterogeneity. Existing models, including those that simulate a near total loss of the northern peatland carbon store under a warming climate, may produce misleading results because they rely upon oversimplified representations of ecological and hydrological processes. In this, the first of a pair of papers, we present the conceptual framework for a model of peatland development, DigiBog, which considers peatlands as complex adaptive systems. DigiBog accounts for the interactions between the processes which govern litter production and peat decay, peat soil hydraulic properties, and peatland water‐table behaviour, in a novel and genuinely ecohydrological manner. DigiBog consists of a number of interacting submodels, each representing a different aspect of peatland ecohydrology. Here we present in detail the mathematical and computational basis, as well as the implementation and testing, of the hydrological submodel. Remaining submodels are described and analysed in the accompanying paper. Tests of the hydrological submodel against analytical solutions for simple aquifers were highly successful: the greatest deviation between DigiBog and the analytical solutions was 2·83%. We also applied the hydrological submodel to irregularly shaped aquifers with heterogeneous hydraulic properties—situations for which no analytical solutions exist—and found the model's outputs to be plausible. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".