MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2578219231 · doi:10.5194/bg-14-145-2017

Transient dynamics of terrestrial carbon storage: mathematical foundation and its applications

2017· article· en· W2578219231 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBiogeosciences · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersUniversity of Tennessee, KnoxvilleU.S. Department of Homeland SecurityNational Institute for Mathematical and Biological SynthesisU.S. Department of AgricultureU.S. Department of EnergyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceResidence time (fluid dynamics)EcosystemTerrestrial ecosystemSink (geography)Atmospheric sciencesCarbon sinkCarbon cycleSoil scienceEcologyEngineeringPhysicsGeographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Terrestrial ecosystems have absorbed roughly 30 % of anthropogenic CO2 emissions over the past decades, but it is unclear whether this carbon (C) sink will endure into the future. Despite extensive modeling and experimental and observational studies, what fundamentally determines transient dynamics of terrestrial C storage under global change is still not very clear. Here we develop a new framework for understanding transient dynamics of terrestrial C storage through mathematical analysis and numerical experiments. Our analysis indicates that the ultimate force driving ecosystem C storage change is the C storage capacity, which is jointly determined by ecosystem C input (e.g., net primary production, NPP) and residence time. Since both C input and residence time vary with time, the C storage capacity is time-dependent and acts as a moving attractor that actual C storage chases. The rate of change in C storage is proportional to the C storage potential, which is the difference between the current storage and the storage capacity. The C storage capacity represents instantaneous responses of the land C cycle to external forcing, whereas the C storage potential represents the internal capability of the land C cycle to influence the C change trajectory in the next time step. The influence happens through redistribution of net C pool changes in a network of pools with different residence times. Moreover, this and our other studies have demonstrated that one matrix equation can replicate simulations of most land C cycle models (i.e., physical emulators). As a result, simulation outputs of those models can be placed into a three-dimensional (3-D) parameter space to measure their differences. The latter can be decomposed into traceable components to track the origins of model uncertainty. In addition, the physical emulators make data assimilation computationally feasible so that both C flux- and pool-related datasets can be used to better constrain model predictions of land C sequestration. Overall, this new mathematical framework offers new approaches to understanding, evaluating, diagnosing, and improving land C cycle 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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.651
Threshold uncertainty score0.293

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.226 · 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