MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4213277952 · doi:10.1029/2021gl097353

Effects of Improved Simulation of Precipitation on Evapotranspiration and Its Partitioning Over Land

2022· article· en· W4213277952 on OpenAlexaff
Zeyu Cui, Yong Wang, Guang J. Zhang, Mengmiao Yang, Jane Liu, Linyi Wei

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Key Research and Development Program of ChinaU.S. Department of EnergyBiological and Environmental ResearchOffice of ScienceNational Science Foundation
KeywordsEvapotranspirationEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesPrecipitationWater cycleTranspirationEvaporationCanopy interceptionClimatologyMeteorologySoil waterSoil scienceGeologyThroughfallGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Evapotranspiration (ET) is a key component of the global hydrological cycle, which is strongly modulated by the occurrence of different rainfall intensities. Global climate models (GCMs) commonly suffer from “too much light rain” and a negative bias in the ratio of transpiration (T) to ET (T/ET). It is unclear whether these biases are related. Here we show that with the improved simulation of probability density functions of rainfall intensity by suppressing light‐rain occurrence using a stochastic convection parameterization in the NCAR CESM1.2, the canopy T increases in tropical forests while evaporation from canopy interception and bare soil decreases. The simulated T/ET is increased by 2.5% globally and up to 8% regionally, primarily attributable to reduced fraction of wet leaves due to less frequent light rain despite its weak intensity. These results imply that excessive light rain is an important cause of the negative T/ET bias in GCMs.

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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.049

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.259 · 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

Citations30
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research Letters→Same topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics→French-language works237,207→