MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3203233955 · doi:10.1029/2021ea001763

Based on Atmospheric Physics and Ecological Principle to Assess the Accuracies of Field CO<sub>2</sub>/H<sub>2</sub>O Measurements From Infrared Gas Analyzers in Closed‐Path Eddy‐Covariance Systems

2021· article· en· W3203233955 on OpenAlexaff
Xinhua Zhou, Tian Gao, Yun-Chao Pang, Hayden Mahan, Xiufen Li, Ning Zheng, Andrew E. Suyker, Tala Awada, Jiaojun Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth and Space Science · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsCampbell Scientific (Canada)
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of China
KeywordsEddy covarianceCovarianceRange (aeronautics)Field (mathematics)Sensitivity (control systems)Span (engineering)PhysicsMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceMathematicsStatisticsAerospace engineeringEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Field CO2/H2O measurements from infrared gas analyzers in closed‐path eddy‐covariance systems have wide applications in earth sciences. Knowledge about exactness of these measurements is required to assess measurement applicability. Although the analyzers are specified with uncertainty components (zero drift, gain drift, cross‐sensitivities, and precision), exactness for individual measurements is unavailable due to an absence of methodology to comprehend the components as an overall uncertainty. Adopting an advanced definition of accuracy as a range of all measurement uncertainty sources, the specified components are composited into a model formulated for studying analyzers’ CO2/H2O accuracy equations. Based on atmospheric physics and environmental parameters, the analyzers are evaluated using the equations for CO2 accuracy (±0.78 µmolCO2 mol−1, relatively ±0.18%) and H2O accuracy (±0.15 mmolH2O mol−1). Evaluation shows that precision and cross‐sensitivity are minor uncertainties while zero and gain drifts are major uncertainties. Both drifts need adjusting through zero/span procedures during field maintenance. The equations provide rationales to guide and assess the procedures. H2O span needs more attentions under humid conditions. Under freezing conditions while H2O span is impractical, this span is fortunately unnecessary. Under the same conditions, H2O zero drift dominates H2O measurement uncertainty. Therefore, automatic zero becomes a more applicable and necessary tactic. In general cases of atmospheric CO2 background, automatic CO2 zero/span procedures can narrow CO2 accuracy by 36% (±0.74 to ± 0.47 µmolCO2 mol−1). Automatic/manual H2O zero/span procedures can narrow H2O accuracy by 27% (±0.15 to ±0.11 mmolH2O mol−1). While ensuring system specifications, the procedures guided by equations improve measurement accuracies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations10
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth and Space ScienceSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207