Evaluation of CarbonTracker's Inverse Estimates of North American Net Ecosystem Exchange of CO <sub>2</sub> From Different Observing Systems Using ACT‐America Airborne Observations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Quantification of regional terrestrial carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) fluxes is critical to our understanding of the carbon cycle. We evaluate inverse estimates of net ecosystem exchange (NEE) of CO 2 fluxes in temperate North America, and their sensitivity to the observational data used to drive the inversions. Specifically, we consider the state‐of‐the‐science CarbonTracker global inversion system, which assimilates (a) in situ measurements (IS), (b) the Orbiting Carbon Observatory‐2 (OCO‐2) v9 column CO 2 (XCO 2 ) retrievals over land (LNLG), (c) OCO‐2 v9 XCO 2 retrievals ocean‐glint (OG), and (d) a combination of all these observational constraints (LNLGOGIS). We use independent CO 2 observations from the Atmospheric Carbon and Transport (ACT)—America aircraft mission to evaluate the inversions. We diagnose errors in the flux estimates using the differences between modeled and observed biogenic CO 2 mole fractions, influence functions from a Lagrangian transport model, Bayesian inference, and root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) and bias metrics. The IS fluxes have the smallest RMSE among the four products, followed by LNLG. Both IS and LNLG outperform the OG and LNLGOGIS inversions with regard to RMSE. Regional errors do not differ markedly across the four sets of posterior fluxes. The CarbonTracker inversions appear to overestimate the seasonal cycle of NEE in the Midwest and Western Canada, and overestimate dormant season NEE across the Central and Eastern US. The CarbonTracker inversions may overestimate annual NEE in the Central and Eastern US. The success of the LNLG inversion with respect to independent observations bodes well for satellite‐based inversions in regions with more limited in situ observing networks.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".