MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108074157 · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-15-0070.1

Hyperresolution Land Surface Modeling in the Context of SMAP Cal–Val

2015· article· en· W2108074157 on OpenAlexaffabout
Camille Garnaud, Stéphane Bélair, Aaron Berg, Tracy Rowlandson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrometeorology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Moisture and Remote Sensing
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceContext (archaeology)Water contentOrographyAtmospheric sciencesMoistureClimatologyMeteorologyPrecipitationGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This study explores the performance of Environment Canada’s Surface Prediction System (SPS) in comparison to in situ observations from the Brightwater Creek soil moisture observation network with respect to soil moisture and soil temperature. To do so, SPS is run at hyperresolution (100 m) over a small domain in southern Saskatchewan (Canada) during the summer of 2014. It is shown that with initial conditions and surface condition forcings based on observations, SPS can simulate soil moisture and soil temperature evolution over time with high accuracy (mean bias of 0.01 m3 m−3 and −0.52°C, respectively). However, the modeled spatial variability is generally much weaker than observed. This is likely related to the model’s use of uniform soil texture, the lack of small-scale orography, as well as a predefined crop growth cycle in SPS. Nonetheless, the spatial averages of simulated soil conditions over the domain are very similar to those observed, suggesting that both are representative of large-scale conditions. Thus, in the context of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration’s (NASA) Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) project, this study shows that both simulated and in situ observations can be upscaled to allow future comparison with upcoming satellite data.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.190

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations20
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydrometeorologySame topicSoil Moisture and Remote SensingFrench-language works237,207