Toward a Unified Understanding of Estimating Evapotranspiration: The Linkage Between Three Effective Parsimonious Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The maximum information entropy production model (MaxEnt), the relative humidity at equilibrium approach (ETRHEQ), and the Surface Flux Equilibrium model (SFE) are three recently developed models to estimate evapotranspiration. Although the connection between ETRHEQ and SFE is evident, no attempts have been made to investigate the congruence, distinctions, or potential complementarity between the two models and MaxEnt. Our mathematical analysis demonstrates that minimizing the vertical variance of RH in ETRHEQ is equivalent to minimizing the dissipation function of energy fluxes in MaxEnt, under the assumption of the same eddy diffusivity of heat and water vapor and with a specific expression for the ratio between the thermal inertia terms for H and LE. The connection between ETRHEQ, SFE, and MaxEnt is independent of Monin‐Obukhov similarity theory (MOST)’s extremum solution, and MOST's extreme solution can be viewed as equivalent to introducing a constant correction factor to account for atmospheric stability. While ETRHEQ and MaxEnt can be united within a single hydrometeorological framework, they diverge in their approaches to modeling evapotranspiration, particularly in how they address the roles of vegetation and land surface heterogeneity. More importantly, the unified framework suggests that turbulence fluxes within the atmospheric boundary layer adhere to the principles of maximum information entropy production. The way in which dissipation, along with its associated entropy production, is established using information entropy theory deviates from traditional thermodynamic entropy formulations. Exploring the connection between thermodynamic and information entropy and developing proper formulations of dissipation for energy fluxes presents an appealing avenue for prospective research.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".