Model prediction of biome‐specific global soil respiration from 1960 to 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Biome‐specific soil respiration (Rs) has important yet different roles in both the carbon cycle and climate change from regional to global scales. To date, no comparable studies related to global biome‐specific Rs have been conducted applying comprehensive global Rs databases. The goal of this study was to develop artificial neural network (ANN) models capable of spatially estimating global Rs and to evaluate the effects of interannual climate variations on 10 major biomes. We used 1976 annual Rs field records extracted from global Rs literature to train and test the ANN models. We determined that the best ANN model for predicting biome‐specific global annual Rs was the one that applied mean annual temperature (MAT), mean annual precipitation (MAP), and biome type as inputs (r2 = 0.60). The ANN models reported an average global Rs of 93.3 ± 6.1 Pg C yr−1 from 1960 to 2012 and an increasing trend in average global annual Rs of 0.04 Pg C yr−1. Estimated annual Rs increased with increases in MAT and MAP in cropland, boreal forest, grassland, shrubland, and wetland biomes. Additionally, estimated annual Rs decreased with increases in MAT and increased with increases in MAP in desert and tundra biomes, and only significantly decreased with increases in MAT (r2 = 0.87) in the savannah biome. The developed biome‐specific global Rs database for global land and soil carbon models will aid in understanding the mechanisms underlying variations in soil carbon dynamics and in quantifying uncertainty in the global soil carbon cycle.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".