MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2900960496 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2018.8518046

Mapping of Plant Functional Type from Satellite-Derived Land Cover Datasets for Climate Models

2018· article· en· W2900960496 on OpenAlexaffabout
Libo Wang, Paul Bartlett, Ed Chan, Ming Xiao

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLand coverAlbedo (alchemy)SatelliteClimate modelEnvironmental scienceRemote sensingComputer scienceClimatologyMeteorologyLand useClimate changeGeographyGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies show that there are large differences in the dominant plant functional types (PFT) used in the CMIP5 models, which contributes to the large spread in surface albedo and snow albedo feedback strength among these models. While several global land cover datasets are commonly used to derive PFTs for use in climate models, methods for mapping PFTs tend to be subjective and there has been very limited evaluation of the uncertainties in the PFT datasets currently used in the models. In this study, we propose a method to link field observed canopy parameters to land cover categories in a high resolution land cover map over Canada, and attempt to some extent to map PFTs objectively. We present some preliminary results from offline simulations of the latest version Canadian Land Surface Scheme over North America.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.727
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.189 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations13
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→