Estimating evapotranspiration using the complementary relationship and the Budyko framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Several models have been developed to estimate evapotranspiration. Among those, the complementary relationship has been the subject of many recent studies because it relies on meteorological data only. Recently, the modified Granger and Gray (GG) model showed its applicability across 34 diverse global sites. While the modified GG model showed better performances compared to the recently published studies, it can be improved for dry conditions and the relative evaporation parameter in the original GG model needs to be further investigated. This parameter was empirically derived from limited data from wet environments in Canada – a possible reason for decreasing performance with dry conditions. This study proposed a refined GG model to overcome the limitation using the Budyko framework and vegetation cover to describe relative evaporation. This study used 75 eddy covariance sites in the USA from AmeriFlux, representing 36 dry and 39 wet sites. The proposed model produced better results with decreasing monthly mean root mean square error of about 30% for dry sites and 15% for wet sites compared to the modified GG model. The proposed model in this study maintains the characteristics of the Budyko framework and the complementary relationship and produced improved evapotranspiration estimates under dry conditions.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".