Development of a hydrometeorological forcing data set for global soil moisture estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Off‐line land surface modeling simulations require accurate meteorological forcing with consistent spatial and temporal resolutions. Although reanalysis products present an attractive data source for these types of applications, bias to many of the reanalysis fields limits their use for hydrological modeling. In this study, we develop a global 0.5° forcing data sets for the time period 1979–1993 on a 6‐hourly time step through application of a bias correction scheme to reanalysis products. We then use this forcing data to drive a land surface model for global estimation of soil moisture and other hydrological states and fluxes. The simulated soil moisture estimates are compared toin situmeasurements, satellite observations and to a modeled data set of root zone soil moisture produced within a separate land surface model, using a different data set of hydrometeorological forcing. In general, there is good agreement between anomalies in modeled and observed (in situ) root zone soil moisture. Similarly, for the surface soil wetness state, modeled estimates and satellite observations are in general statistical agreement; however, correlations decline with increasing vegetation amount. Comparisons to a modeled data set of soil moisture also demonstrates that both simulations present estimates that are well correlated for the soil moisture in the anomaly time series, despite being derived from different land surface models, using different data sources for meteorological forcing, and with different specifications of the land surfaces properties. Copyright © 2005 Royal Meteorological Society
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".