Advancing Cross‐Disciplinary Understanding of Land‐Atmosphere Interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The evolution of disciplinary silos and increasingly narrow disciplinary boundaries have together resulted in one‐sided approaches to the study of land‐atmosphere interactions—a field that requires a bi‐directional approach to understand the complex feedbacks and interactions that occur. The integration of surface flux and atmospheric boundary layer measurements is therefore essential to advancing our understanding. The Land‐Atmosphere 2021 workshop (held virtually, June 10‐11, 2021) involved almost 300 participants from around the world and promoted cross‐discipline collaboration by way of talks from invited speakers, moderated discussions, breakout sessions, and a virtual poster session. The workshop focused on five main theme areas: “big picture” overview, instrumentation and remote sensing, modeling, water, and aerosols and clouds. In talks and breakout groups, there were frequent calls for more AmeriFlux sites to be instrumented for boundary layer height measurements, and for the development of some “super sites” where profiling instruments would be deployed. There was further agreement on the need for the standardization of various datasets. There was also a consensus that funding agencies need to be willing to support the sorts of large projects (including associated instrumentation) which can drive interdisciplinary work. Early‐career scientists, in particular, expressed enthusiasm for working across disciplinary boundaries but noted that there need to be more financial support and training opportunities so they would be better prepared for interdisciplinary work. Investment in these career development opportunities would enable today's cohort of early‐career scientists to advance the frontiers of interdisciplinary work over the next couple of decades.
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 | 0.024 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".