Surface Energy Balance of the Western and Central Canadian Subarctic: Variations in the Energy Balance among Five Major Terrain Types
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, the surface energy balance of 10 sites in the western and central Canadian subarctic is examined. Each research site is classified into one of five terrain types (lake, wetland, shrub tundra, upland tundra, and coniferous forest) using dominant vegetation type as an indicator of surface cover. Variations in the mean summertime values (15 June–25 August) of the energy balance partitioning, Bowen ratio (b), Priestley–Taylor alpha (a), and surface saturation deficit (Do) are compared within and among terrain types. A clear correspondence between the energy balance characteristics and terrain type is found. In addition, an evaporative continuum from relatively wet to relatively dry is observed among terrain types. The shallow lake and wetland sites are relatively wet with high QE/Q * (latent heat flux/net radiation), high a, low b, and low Do values. In contrast, the upland tundra and forest sites are relatively dry with low QE/Q*, low a, high b, and high Do values. 1.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".