MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2564836735 · doi:10.1038/ncomms13717

Evaluating the convergence between eddy-covariance and biometric methods for assessing carbon budgets of forests

2016· article· en· W2564836735 on OpenAlexaff
Matteo Campioli, Yadvinder Malhi, Sara Vicca, Sebastiaan Luyssaert, Dario Papale, Josep Peñuelas, Markus Reichstein, Mirco Migliavacca, M. Altaf Arain, Ivan A. Janssens

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersVlaamse regeringFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsEddy covariancePrimary productionEcosystem respirationEnvironmental scienceEcosystemAtmospheric sciencesTerrestrial ecosystemEcosystem ecologyRespirationCovarianceTaigaConvergence (economics)EcologyBiologyMathematicsStatisticsBotanyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

exchange between terrestrial ecosystems and the atmosphere (net ecosystem production, NEP) and its two components, ecosystem respiration and gross primary production. Here we show that EC and BM provide different estimates of NEP, but comparable ecosystem respiration and gross primary production for forest ecosystems globally. Discrepancies between methods are not related to environmental or stand variables, but are consistently more pronounced for boreal forests where carbon fluxes are smaller. BM estimates are prone to underestimation of net primary production and overestimation of leaf respiration. EC biases are not apparent across sites, suggesting the effectiveness of standard post-processing procedures. Our results increase confidence in EC, show in which conditions EC and BM estimates can be integrated, and which methodological aspects can improve the convergence between EC and BM.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.390
Threshold uncertainty score0.181

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.355 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations146
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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