MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2647927681 · doi:10.1002/2017gl074041

Constrained variability of modeled <i>T</i>:<i>ET</i> ratio across biomes

2017· article· en· W2647927681 on OpenAlexaff
Simone Fatichi, Christoforos Pappas

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCenter for Northern Studies
FundersStavros Niarchos FoundationSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen Forschung
KeywordsBiomeEvapotranspirationPrecipitationAtmospheric sciencesStandard deviationRange (aeronautics)Environmental sciencePotential evaporationTranspirationEvaporationInterceptionLeaf area indexClimatologyMathematicsStatisticsGeologyEcosystemEcologyGeographyMeteorologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A large variability (35–90%) in the ratio of transpiration to total evapotranspiration (referred here as T:ET ) across biomes or even at the global scale has been documented by a number of studies carried out with different methodologies. Previous empirical results also suggest that T:ET does not covary with mean precipitation and has a positive dependence on leaf area index (LAI). Here we use a mechanistic ecohydrological model, with a refined process‐based description of evaporation from the soil surface, to investigate the variability of T:ET across biomes. Numerical results reveal a more constrained range and higher mean of T:ET (70 ± 9%, mean ± standard deviation) when compared to observation‐based estimates. T:ET is confirmed to be independent from mean precipitation, while it is found to be correlated with LAI seasonally but uncorrelated across multiple sites. Larger LAI increases evaporation from interception but diminishes ground evaporation with the two effects largely compensating each other. These results offer mechanistic model‐based evidence to the ongoing research about the patterns of T:ET and the factors influencing its magnitude across biomes.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.927
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations151
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207