Evaluating the Performance of the Canadian Land Surface Scheme Including Biogeochemical Cycles (CLASSIC) Tailored to the Pan‐Canadian Domain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canada's boreal forests and tundra ecosystems are responding to unprecedented climate change with implications for the global carbon (C) cycle and global climate. However, our ability to model the response of Canada's terrestrial ecosystems to climate change is limited and there has been no comprehensive, process‐based assessment of Canada's terrestrial C cycle. We tailor the Canadian Land Surface Scheme Including Biogeochemical Cycles (CLASSIC) to Canada and evaluate its C cycling performance against independent reference data. We utilize skill scores to assess model performance against reference data alongside benchmark scores that quantify the level of agreement between the reference data sets to aid in interpretation. Our results demonstrate CLASSIC's sensitivity to prescribed vegetation cover. They also show that the addition of five region‐specific Plant functional types (PFTs) improves CLASSIC's skill at simulating the Canadian C cycle. CLASSIC performs well when tailored to Canada, falls within the range of the reference data sets, and meets or exceeds the benchmark scores for most C cycling processes. New region‐specific land cover products, well‐informed PFT parameterizations, and more detailed reference data sets will facilitate improvements to the representation of the terrestrial C cycle in regional and global land surface models. Incorporating a parameterization for boreal disturbance processes and explicitly representing peatlands and permafrost soils will improve CLASSIC's future performance in Canada and other boreal regions. This is an important step toward a comprehensive process‐based assessment of Canada's terrestrial C cycle and evaluating Canada's net C balance under climate change.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".