A critical assessment of Geological Weighing Lysimeters: Part 2 - modelling field scale soil moisture storage and hydrological fluxes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
not-yet-known not-yet-known not-yet-known unknown Land surface models (LSMs) are used to simulate water and energy fluxes between the land surface and atmosphere. These simulations are useful for water resources management, drought and flood prediction, and numerical climate/weather prediction. However, the usefulness of LSMs are dependent by their ability to reproduce states and fluxes realistically. Accurate measurements of water storage are useful to calibrate and validate LSMs outputs. Geological Weighing Lysimeters (GWLs) are instruments that can provide field-scale estimates of integrated total water storage within a soil profile. We use field estimates of total water storage and subsurface storage to critically evaluate two different land surface models: the Modélisation Environnementale communautaire - Surface Hydrology (MESH) which uses the Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS), and the Structure for Unifying Multiple Modeling Alternatives: (SUMMA). These models have differences in how the processes and properties of the land surface are represented. We attempted to parameterize each model in an equivalent manner, to minimize model differences. Both models were able to reproduce observations of total water storage and subsurface storage reasonably well. However, there were inconsistencies in the simulated timing of snowmelt; depth of soil freezing; total evapotranspiration; partitioning of evaporation between soil evaporation and evaporation of intercepted water; and soil drainage. No one model emerged as better overall, though each model had specific strengths and weaknesses that we describe. Insights from this study can be used to improve model physics and performance.
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 | 0.015 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".