MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2157939402 · doi:10.1623/hysj.53.5.1030

Plant growth simulation for landscape-scale hydrological modelling

2008· article· en· W2157939402 on OpenAlexaff
J. R. Kiniry, J. Douglas MacDonald, Armen R. Kemanian, Brett M Watson, Gordon Putz, Ellie E. Prepas

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Sciences Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityUniversity of SaskatchewanAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSimulation modelingEnvironmental scienceScale (ratio)Vegetation (pathology)Disturbance (geology)Plant growthHydrology (agriculture)GeographyEngineeringGeologyBiologyCartographyMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Landscape-scale hydrological models can be improved by incorporating realistic, process-oriented plant models for simulating crops, perennial grasses and woody species. The objective of this project was to present some approaches for plant modelling applicable to daily time step hydrological transport models, such as SWAT. Accurate simulation of plant growth can improve the accuracy of simulations of hydrological and biogeochemical cycles. First, we describe some unique aspects of the general plant model ALMANAC. Next, we describe a modification of the original ALMANAC model used to simulate complex successional vegetation changes in the years following disturbance of a variety of different forest ecosystems, such as forest fires, clear cuts and insect infestations. Finally, we discuss alternative physiological and physical process simulation techniques of plant growth that could increase simulation accuracy in landscape-scale hydrological and transport models such as SWAT.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.029

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.197 · 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
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations45
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological Sciences JournalSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207