Automated Quality Control of In Situ Soil Moisture from the North American Soil Moisture Database Using NLDAS-2 Products
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The North American Soil Moisture Database (NASMD) was initiated in 2011 to provide support for developing climate forecasting tools, calibrating land surface models, and validating satellite-derived soil moisture algorithms. The NASMD has collected data from over 30 soil moisture observation networks providing millions of in situ soil moisture observations in all 50 states, as well as Canada and Mexico. It is recognized that the quality of measured soil moisture in NASMD is highly variable because of the diversity of climatological conditions, land cover, soil texture, and topographies of the stations, and differences in measurement devices (e.g., sensors) and installation. It is also recognized that error, inaccuracy, and imprecision in the data can have significant impacts on practical operations and scientific studies. Therefore, developing an appropriate quality control procedure is essential to ensure that the data are of the best quality. In this study, an automated quality control approach is developed using the North American Land Data Assimilation System, phase 2 (NLDAS-2), Noah soil porosity, soil temperature, and fraction of liquid and total soil moisture to flag erroneous and/or spurious measurements. Overall results show that this approach is able to flag unreasonable values when the soil is partially frozen. A validation example using NLDAS-2 multiple model soil moisture products at the 20-cm soil layer showed that the quality control procedure had a significant positive impact in Alabama, North Carolina, and west Texas. It had a greater impact in colder regions, particularly during spring and autumn. Over 433 NASMD stations have been quality controlled using the methodology proposed in this study, and the algorithm will be implemented to control data quality from the other ~1200 NASMD stations in the near future.
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".