MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Community Insights for scoping a NASA Terrestrial Ecology field campaign in drylands: ARID

2024· preprint· en· W4399480565 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew F. Feldman, Sasha C. Reed, Cibele Hummel do Amaral, Alicja Babst‐Kostecka, Flurin Babst, Joel A. Biederman, Charles John Devine, Zheng Fu, Julia K. Green, Jessica Guo, Niall P. Hanan, Raymond F. Kokaly, M. E. Litvak, Natasha MacBean, D. J. Moore, Dennis S. Ojima, Benjamin Poulter, Russell L. Scott, William K. Smith, Robert Swap, Compton J. Tucker, Lixin Wang, Jennifer D. Watts, Konrad Wessels, Fangyue Zhang, Wen Zhang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental resource managementExpansiveEarth system scienceClimate changeEcosystem servicesAridNovel ecosystemGeographyEcosystemNatural resourceEcologyEnvironmental science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dryland ecosystems cover 40% of our planet’s land surface, support the lives of billions of people, and are responding dramatically to the combined effects of climate and land use change. These expansive and diverse systems also dominate core aspects of Earth’s climate, storing and exchanging vast amounts of water, carbon, and energy with the atmosphere. Despite the indispensable natural resources and ecosystem services provided by drylands and their high vulnerability to change, drylands are one of the most, if not the most, poorly understood ecosystem types. Such lack of study has been in part due to incorrect historical assumptions that drylands are unproductive “wastelands”. This lack of understanding results in notably poor model representation and forecasting capacity, hindering our representation and decision making for these vulnerable ecosystems. The NASA Terrestrial Ecology Program solicited proposals for a multi-year field campaign, of which Adaptation and Response in Drylands (ARID) was one of two scoping studies selected. With the goal of gathering input from the scientific and data end-user communities, we provide an overview of our ARID kick-off meeting with over 300 in-person and virtual participants held in October 2023 at the University of Arizona. This meeting gathered insights from public and private data end-users and scientists. We also report on follow-up activities that have taken place since then, including town halls, community surveys, and international engagements.

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)0.036
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.061
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0360.061
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0060.003
Scholarly communication0.0070.007
Open science0.0010.010
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0160.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.241 · 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 designQualitative
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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