MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Representation of Variable Root Distribution in Dynamic Vegetation Models

2003· article· en· W2136188488 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth Interactions · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBiomass (ecology)EvergreenTundraVegetation (pathology)Environmental scienceRoot (linguistics)TranspirationTemperate climateSpatial distributionRoot systemSoil scienceMathematicsAgronomyBotanyPhotosynthesisBiologyEcologyStatisticsEcosystem

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Root distribution is treated as a static component in most current dynamic vegetation models (DVMs). While changes in leaf and stem biomass are reflected in leaf area index (LAI) and vegetation height via specific leaf area (SLA) and allometric relationships, most DVMs assume that changes in root biomass do not result in changes in the root distribution profile and rooting depth. That is, the fraction of roots in soil layers, which is used to estimate transpiration, is taken to be constant and independent of root biomass and/or vegetation age. A methodology for parameterizing root distribution as a function of root biomass is proposed for use in dynamic vegetation models. In this representation, root distribution and rooting depth evolve and increase as root biomass increases, as is expected intuitively and as is seen in observations. Root biomass data from temperate coniferous, tropical evergreen, and tundra sites show that the approach successfully represents, to the first order, the change of root distribution and rooting depth as a function of root biomass.

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.

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)0.000
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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.227 · 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