Characterizing vegetation structural and topographic characteristics sampled by eddy covariance within two mature aspen stands using lidar and a flux footprint model: Scaling to MODIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
[1] In this study, a Boolean classification was applied using novel methods to 3-D vegetation structural and topographic attributes found within flux footprint source/sink areas measured by eddy covariance instrumentation. The purpose was to determine if the spatial frequency of 3-D attributes, such as canopy height, effective leaf area index, etc., found within 1 km resolution Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) pixels were significantly different from or similar to attributes sampled by flux footprints originating from prevailing wind directions. A Kolmogorov-Smirnov test was used for the first time to apply confidence limits to individual MODIS pixels based on (1) the spatial distribution of cumulative frequencies of attributes representative of those sampled by eddy covariance and (2) temporal representation of MODIS pixels related to area sampling frequency by eddy covariance based on wind direction. Structural and topographic attributes at homogeneous Southern Old Aspen and heterogeneous Upland Aspen sites are representative of 56% and 69% of a 1 km radius area surrounding the tower and 21% and 47% of a 4 × 4 km area. Attributes found within the MODIS “tower” pixel compare well with attributes most frequently sampled by eddy covariance instruments at both sites. By classifying pixels using the Boolean approach, correspondence between MODIS pixels and eddy covariance estimates of gross primary production (GPP) explain up to 13% more variance than using pixels proximal to the tower. This study, therefore, provides a method for choosing MODIS pixels that have similar attributes to those found within footprints most frequently sampled by eddy covariance.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".