MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206124792 · doi:10.1175/bams-d-21-0228.1

Building a Land Data Assimilation Community to Tackle Technical Challenges in Quantifying and Reducing Uncertainty in Land Model Predictions

2022· article· en· W4206124792 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Natasha MacBean, Hannah M. Liddy, Tristan Quaife, Jana Kolassa, A. M. Fox

Bibliographic record

VenueBulletin of the American Meteorological Society · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersOak Ridge National LaboratoryNatural Environment Research CouncilGoddard Institute for Space StudiesCenter for Neuroscience and Regenerative MedicineGoddard Space Flight CenterJet Propulsion LaboratoryTechnische Universiteit DelftUniversity College LondonMet OfficeUniversity of ReadingNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationSight Research UKNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationVrije Universiteit AmsterdamLunds UniversitetUniversity of Notre DameMount Royal University
KeywordsData assimilationEnvironmental scienceAssimilation (phonology)MeteorologyEnvironmental resource managementComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

he regional to global-scale process-based land models that form part of numerical weather prediction (NWP) systems or Earth system models (ESMs) have rapidly increased in their complexity over the past few decades (Prentice et al. 2015;Fisher and Koven, 2020).In parallel, there is a growing wealth of terrestrial observations that can be used to confront land models, including long-running observation/experiment campaigns [e.g., NSF Long-Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites and DOE Next-Generation Ecosystem Experiments-Tropics (NGEE-Tropics) and Arctic] and satellite missions or products [e.g., Landsat and MODIS from NASA, ESA Climate Change Initiative (CCI) Soil Moisture], the synthesis of site-based and experimental manipulation data into networks [e.g., FLUXNET, Integrated Carbon Observation System (ICOS), the International Soil Moisture Network, SAPFLUXNET, Drought-Net, Free Air CO 2 Enrichment (FACE)], novel ground-based observations (e.g., tree ring data, carbonyl sulfide, radiocarbon measurements), and a new array of space-based observations of global carbon, water, and energy cycles [e.g., hyperspectral and lidar instruments such as Global Ecosystem Dynamics Investigation (GEDI) and Hyperspectral Imager Suite (HISUI) on the International Space Station (ISS), and solar induced fluorescence from platforms like the Orbiting Carbon Observatory 2 (OCO-2) and Tropospheric Monitoring Instrument (TROPOMI)] at higher spatial, temporal, and spectral resolutions than ever before.Despite the increasing complexity of models and density of land-based data, uncertainty in land model projections remains high.While there has been a concerted effort to use terrestrial observations for model evaluation, the number of studies that use these data for quantifying and reducing uncertainty in land model parameters and states via a statistical data assimilation (DA) framework is small in comparison.This is primarily due to the computational expense and technical challenges associated with implementing such a global-scale land DA system.However, land models urgently need to be confronted with a wide range of data to optimize model parameters, initialize surface states, and to address model structural uncertainty.Without such efforts, we cannot quantify or reduce uncertainty associated with individual model projections, and the intermodel spread in weather forecasts and predictions of land-atmospheric interactions or carbon-climate feedbacks will remain high (Arora et al. 2020). The challenge of developing land DA systemsA number of land modeling groups spanning different modeling communities [carbon, hydrology, land surface modeling (LSM)/ESM, and NWP] have devoted significant resources into developing global-scale land DA systems.However, this technical development work does not get the level of exposure in the literature or in conference talks commensurate with the resources needed to complete that work because publications and presentations are naturally focused on scientific questions.For the same reason, development of DA systems is typically not the focus of grant proposals nor calls for proposals by funding agencies.Nonetheless

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)0.021
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0210.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.012
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0030.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBulletin of the American Meteorological SocietySame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207