Utilization of the Google Earth Engine for the evaluation of daily soil temperature derived from Global Land Data Assimilation System in two different depths over a semiarid region
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Google Earth Engine (GEE) was used to investigate the performance of the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) soil temperature (ST) data against observed ST from 13 synoptic stations over a semiarid region in Iran. Three‐hourly ST data were collected and analyzed in two depths (0–10 cm; 40–100 cm) and 5 years. In each depth, GLDAS‐Noah ST data were evaluated for daily minimum, maximum, and average ST (i.e., Tmin, Tmax, and Tavg). Based on the correlation coefficient, Kling–Gupta Efficiency, and Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency the overall performance of the GLDAS‐Noah is 0.96, 0.66, and 0.79 for Tmin; 0.97, 0.84, and 0.89 for Tavg; and 0.95, 0.89, and 0.89 for Tmax, respectively in the first layer. Likewise, 0.97, 0.85, and 0.86 for Tmin; 0.97, 0.77, and 0.80 for Tavg; and 0.97, 0.69, and 0.69 for Tmax are obtained in the second layer. However, there is a significant negative bias which tends to underestimate ST in the two investigated layers, given by an average bias over all the stations analyzed of −24%, −12%, and −5% for Tmin, Tavg, and Tmax in the first layer, and average bias of −8%, −13%, and −17% for Tmin, Tavg, and Tmax in the second layer. This study reveals that GLDAS‐Noah‐derived ST can be used in arid regions where little or no observation data is available. Moreover, GEE performed as an advanced geospatial processing tool in regional scale analysis of ST in different layers.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 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".