MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2156892295 · doi:10.5194/gmd-5-819-2012

Towards a public, standardized, diagnostic benchmarking system for land surface models

2012· article· en· W2156892295 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Gab Abramowitz

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicSoil Geostatistics and Mapping
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersLawrence Berkeley National LaboratoryBiological and Environmental ResearchNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOak Ridge National LaboratoryUniversity of New South WalesMicrosoft ResearchCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesNatural Resources CanadaUniversité LavalU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsBenchmarkingA priori and a posterioriComputer scienceProtocol (science)Work (physics)BusinessEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. This work examines different conceptions of land surface model benchmarking and the importance of internationally standardized evaluation experiments that specify data sets, variables, metrics and model resolutions. It additionally demonstrates how essential the definition of a priori expectations of model performance can be, based on the complexity of a model and the amount of information being provided to it, and gives an example of how these expectations might be quantified. Finally, the Protocol for the Analysis of Land Surface models (PALS) is introduced – a free, online land surface model benchmarking application that is structured to meet both of these goals.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.188
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.222
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.188
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1880.222
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0130.010
Science and technology studies0.0040.003
Scholarly communication0.0150.020
Open science0.0070.014
Research integrity0.0040.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.005

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.200 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

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

Citations124
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscientific model developmentSame topicSoil Geostatistics and MappingFrench-language works237,207