MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2477164700 · doi:10.1080/11956860.2016.1202885

Applying time series models to estimate time lags between sap flux and micro-meteorological factors

2016· article· en· W2477164700 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Xiaowei Zhao, Ping Zhao, Liwei Zhu, Xiuhua Zhao

Bibliographic record

VenueEcoscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsTranspirationEnvironmental scienceCanopyVapour Pressure DeficitAtmospheric sciencesCanopy conductanceStomatal conductanceFlux (metallurgy)UnivariateEcologyMathematicsMultivariate statisticsStatisticsBotanyBiologyChemistryPhotosynthesisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sap flux (Ft) measurements are extensively used to scale-up canopy transpiration and conductance, but time lag between sap flux and canopy transpiration is a problem. As canopy transpiration is nearly synchronous with micrometeorological drivers, better understanding of the lag relationships between Ft and micrometeorological drivers and soil water conditions would benefit the up-scaling of canopy transpiration from sap flux. Time series modeling at different spatial and temporal scales can identify and incorporate time lag effects, as well as multiple variables affecting transpiration and the interactions between them. SARIMAX and GARCH hybrid models were used to capture seasonality and autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity effects. Two univariate hybrid models were designed to measure vapor pressure deficit () and photosynthetic active radiation (), and one multivariate hybrid model was used in each season. Sap flow lagged behind canopy transpiration by 0–10 min in the dry season and 10–20 min in the wet season. had a stronger influence on transpiration than . Only the interaction between and in the wet season was observed. This study extends the application of time series modeling to the prediction of sap flow dynamics.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.671
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.215
Teacher spread0.202 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations12
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEcoscienceSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207