MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2800694964 · doi:10.1029/2017ms001044

Robust Inverse Modeling of Growing Season Net Ecosystem Exchange in a Mountainous Peatland: Influence of Distributional Assumptions on Estimated Parameters and Total Carbon Fluxes

2018· article· en· W2800694964 on OpenAlexaff
Tobias K. D. Weber, Lars Gerling, Daniela Reineke, Stephan Weber, Wolfgang Durner, Sascha C. Iden

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
FundersDeutscher Akademischer AustauschdienstUniversität Hohenheim
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceEddy covariancePeatAtmospheric sciencesCovarianceStatisticsMathematicsEcosystemGeographyEcologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract While boreal lowland bogs have been extensively studied using the eddy‐covariance (EC) technique, less knowledge exists on mountainous peatlands. Hence, half‐hourly CO 2 fluxes of an ombrotrophic peat bog in the Harz Mountains, Germany, were measured with the EC technique during a growing season with exceptionally dry weather spells. A common biophysical process model for net ecosystem exchange was used to describe measured CO 2 fluxes and to fill data gaps. Model parameters and uncertainties were estimated by robust inverse modelling in a Bayesian framework using a population‐based Markov Chain Monte Carlo sampler. The focus of this study was on the correct statistical description of error, i.e. the differences between the measured and simulated carbon fluxes, and the influence of distributional assumptions on parameter estimates, cumulative carbon fluxes, and uncertainties. We tested the Gaussian, Laplace, and Student's t distribution as error models. The t‐distribution was identified as best error model by the deviance information criterion. Its use led to markedly different parameter estimates, a reduction of parameter uncertainty by about 40%, and, most importantly, to a 5% higher estimated cumulative CO 2 uptake as compared to the commonly assumed Gaussian error distribution. As open‐path measurement systems have larger measurement error at high humidity, the standard deviation of the error was modeled as a function of measured vapor pressure deficit. Overall, this paper demonstrates the importance of critically assessing the influence of distributional assumptions on estimated model parameters and cumulative carbon fluxes between the land surface and the atmosphere.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations9
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Advances in Modeling Earth SystemsSame topicPeatlands and Wetlands EcologyFrench-language works237,207