A boreal forest model benchmarking dataset for North America: a case study with the Canadian Land Surface Scheme Including Biogeochemical Cycles (CLASSIC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Climate change is rapidly altering composition, structure, and functioning of the boreal biome, across North America often broadly categorized into ecoregions. The resulting complex changes in different ecoregions present a challenge for efforts to accurately simulate carbon dioxide (CO 2 ) and energy exchanges between boreal forests and the atmosphere with terrestrial ecosystem models (TEMs). Eddy covariance measurements provide valuable information for evaluating the performance of TEMs and guiding their development. Here, we compiled a boreal forest model benchmarking dataset for North America by harmonizing eddy covariance and supporting measurements from eight black spruce ( Picea mariana )-dominated, mature forest stands. The eight forest stands, located in six boreal ecoregions of North America, differ in stand characteristics, disturbance history, climate, permafrost conditions and soil properties. By compiling various data streams, the benchmarking dataset comprises data to parameterize, force, and evaluate TEMs. Specifically, it includes half-hourly, gap-filled meteorological forcing data, ancillary data essential for model parameterization, and half-hourly, gap-filled or partitioned component flux data on CO 2 (net ecosystem production, gross primary production [GPP], and ecosystem respiration [ER]) and energy (latent [LE] and sensible heat [H]) and their daily aggregates screened based on half-hourly gap-filling quality criteria. We present a case study with the Canadian Land Surface Scheme Including Biogeochemical Cycles (CLASSIC) to: (1) demonstrate the utility of our dataset to benchmark TEMs and (2) provide guidance for model development and refinement. Model skill was evaluated using several statistical metrics and further examined through the flux responses to their environmental controls. Our results suggest that CLASSIC tended to overestimate GPP and ER among all stands. Model performance regarding the energy fluxes (i.e., LE and H) varied greatly among the stands and exhibited a moderate correlation with latitude. We identified strong relationships between simulated fluxes and their environmental controls except for H, thus highlighting current strengths and limitations of CLASSIC.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".