High-latitude eddy covariance temporal network design and optimization.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ecosystems at high latitudes are under increasing stress from climate change. To understand changes in carbon fluxes, in situ measurements from eddy covariance networks are needed. However, there are large spatiotemporal gaps in the high-latitude eddy covariance network. Here we used the relative extrapolation error index in machine learning-based upscaled gross primary production as a measure of network representativeness and as the basis for a network optimization. We show that the relative extrapolation error index has steadily decreased from 2001 to 2020, suggesting diminishing upscaling errors. In experiments where we limit site activity by either setting a maximum duration or by ending measurements at a fixed time those errors increase significantly, in some cases setting the network status back more than a decade. Our experiments also show that with equal site activity across different theoretical network setups, a more spread out design with shorter-term measurements functions better in terms of larger-scale representativeness than a network with fewer long-term towers. We developed a method to select optimized site additions for a network extension, which blends an objective modeling approach with expert knowledge. Using a case study in the Canadian Arctic we show several optimization scenarios and compare these to a random site selection among reasonable choices. This method greatly outperforms an unguided network extension and can compensate for suboptimal human choices. Overall, it is important to keep sites active and where possible make the extra investment to survey new strategic locations.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".