An initial assessment of SMAP soil moisture retrievals using high-resolution model simulations and in situ observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
At the end of its first year of operation, we compare soil moisture retrievals from the Soil Moisture Active Passive (SMAP) mission to simulations from a land surface model with meteorological forcing downscaled from observations/reanalysis and in situ observations from sparse monitoring networks within continental United States (CONUS). The radar failure limits the duration of comparisons for the active and combined products (~3 months). Nevertheless, the passive product compares very well against in situ observations over CONUS. On average, SMAP compares to the in situ data even better than the land surface model and provides significant added value on top of the model and thus good potential for data assimilation. At large scale, SMAP is in good agreement with the model in most of CONUS with less-than-expected degradation over mountainous areas. Lower correlation between SMAP and the model is seen in the forested east CONUS and significantly lower over the Canadian boreal forests.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".