Quality control of CarboEurope flux data – Part 1: Coupling footprint analyses with flux data quality assessment to evaluate sites in forest ecosystems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. We applied a site evaluation approach combining Lagrangian Stochastic footprint modeling with a quality assessment approach for eddy-covariance data to 25 forested sites of the CarboEurope-IP network. The analysis addresses the spatial representativeness of the flux measurements, instrumental effects on data quality, spatial patterns in the data quality, and the performance of the coordinate rotation method. Our findings demonstrate that application of a footprint filter could strengthen the CarboEurope-IP flux database, since only one third of the sites is situated in truly homogeneous terrain. Almost half of the sites experience a significant reduction in eddy-covariance data quality under certain conditions, though these effects are mostly constricted to a small portion of the dataset. Reductions in data quality of the sensible heat flux are mostly induced by characteristics of the surrounding terrain, while the latent heat flux is subject to instrumentation-related problems. The Planar-Fit coordinate rotation proved to be a reliable tool for the majority of the sites using only a single set of rotation angles. Overall, we found a high average data quality for the CarboEurope-IP network, with good representativeness of the measurement data for the specified target land cover types.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".