MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4396508254 · doi:10.22215/etd/2023-15875

Random Forest Modelling and Monitoring of Surface-Atmosphere Carbon Dioxide Flux in the Hudson Bay Lowlands

2023· dissertation· en· W4396508254 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jason Beaver

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology
Canadian institutionsCarleton University
FundersMinistère de l’Environnement, de la Protection de la nature et des ParcsMinistry of Environment
KeywordsEddy covarianceCarbon cycleEnvironmental sciencePrimary productionPeatEcosystem respirationAtmospheric sciencesEcosystemRemote sensingClimatologyGeographyGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peatlands are a critical component of the global carbon cycle despite covering only 3% of the earth's surface.Within Canada the largest contiguous peatland is the Hudson Bay Lowlands (HBL), storing an estimated 33 Gt of carbon as peat as a result of a small but persistent difference between gross primary productivity (GPP) and ecosystem respiration (ER) over millennia.The vastness and remote nature of the HBL makes insitu monitoring of its carbon cycle difficult.To address this, random forest (RF) regression models driven solely by remote sensing imagery (either 500 m MODIS or 30 m Harmonized Landsat Sentinel) are trained to predict GPP based on eddy covariance CO2 flux data from 2012-2019 for five sites spanning a climatic gradient in the HBL.There is little difference between daily GPP simulations for spatial resolutions between 30 m and 500 m (R 2 = 0.65-0.78),but better temporal resolution improves model results at the annual time step.Additional RF models are trained to predict ER and the net difference between ER and GPP (net ecosystem exchange; NEE) using MODIS data.NEE models are weaker (R 2 = ~0.48)but generally do better than published semiempirical methods based on light use efficiency and temperature-respiration relationships, while ER remains accurately predicted (R 2 = 0.71) by the models.These RF models are then applied to three 48 km  48 km regions around the field sites and compared with established global products from other machine learning algorithms, process-based, atmospheric inversion, and remote sensing-based models for the period 2000-2020.These products predict greater GPP compared to the RF models as few include peatland-specific parameterizations.However, all models (RF and global products) present a common latitudinal trend with the greatest GPP in the south and iii decreasing northward.Most of the models agree that the HBL is a net sink of CO2 for this period but there is less agreement on the magnitude and latitudinal gradient.Remote sensing-based RF models of CO2 flux show promise for monitoring changes in the HBL's carbon flux, particularly when there is land use change or other impactful disturbances on a large scale.formed the supervisory committee and brought a wealth of experience and mastery to the research and writing.I would like to acknowledge the Ontario Ministry of Environment, Conservation and Parks Air Monitoring and Modelling Section led by Aaron Todd and Chris Charron and supported by Andrew Warner and Mike Luciani who have installed and maintained the eddy covariance towers central to this research as well as Dr. Salvatore Curasi for his provision of the AMBER and CLASSIC data products used in the fifth chapter.I am grateful to Emma Stockton for her camaraderie, commiseration and the countless conversations that have kept spirits high as we have both worked towards graduation.Special thanks to my family, especially my parents, who have been supportive of my path since the beginning.And lastly, I would like to recognize my brothers in all but blood who have always had my back.

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)0.001
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 score0.605
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeatlands and Wetlands Ecology→French-language works237,207→