COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF GPP PRODUCTS ESTIMATED FROM AN EMPIRICAL MODEL AND MODIS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Carbon-cycle models have uncertainties associated with data inputs, parameters, and model algorithms. The prerequisite for an applicable model is that it should perform at an acceptable level of accuracy and uncertainties should be documented. In this study, we validated the gross primary productivity (GPP) data from a piecewise regression (PWR) model and the MODIS GPP model at five grassland flux towers in the Northern Great Plains. The results showed a good agreement of GPP values (agreement coefficient d = 0.88–0.98) among PWR, MODIS, and tower measurements at Fort Peck, Mandan, and Cheyenne sites; but MODIS GPP did not agree well (d = 0.62–0.79) with tower measurements at Miles City and Lethbridge sites. Additionally, we compared PWR GPP and MODIS GPP for grasslands in the entire study area. We found that the PWR GPP was lower than or similar to the MODIS GPP in the east and higher in the west and south. We explored possible factors that may cause the GPP difference in spatial distribution between the two models.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".