Estimating surface fluxes using eddy covariance and numerical ogive optimization
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Estimating representative surface fluxes using eddy covariance leads invariably to questions concerning inclusion or exclusion of low-frequency flux contributions. For studies where fluxes are linked to local physical parameters and up-scaled through numerical modelling efforts, low-frequency contributions interfere with our ability to isolate local biogeochemical processes of interest, as represented by turbulent fluxes. No method currently exists to disentangle low-frequency contributions on flux estimates. Here, we present a novel comprehensive numerical scheme to identify and separate out low-frequency contributions to vertical turbulent surface fluxes. For high flux rates (|Sensible heat flux| > 40 Wm−2, |latent heat flux|> 20 Wm−2 and |CO2 flux|> 100 mmol m−2 d−1 we found that the average relative difference between fluxes estimated by ogive optimization and the conventional method was low (5–20%) suggesting negligible low-frequency influence and that both methods capture the turbulent fluxes equally well. For flux rates below these thresholds, however, the average relative difference between flux estimates was found to be very high (23–98%) suggesting non-negligible low-frequency influence and that the conventional method fails in separating low-frequency influences from the turbulent fluxes. Hence, the ogive optimization method is an appropriate method of flux analysis, particularly in low-flux environments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".