MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404665124 · doi:10.1038/s43247-024-01910-w

Improved estimates of net ecosystem exchanges in mega-countries using GOSAT and OCO-2 observations

2024· article· en· W4404665124 on OpenAlexaff
Lingyu Zhang, Fei Jiang, Wei He, Mousong Wu, Jun Wang, Weimin Ju, Hengmao Wang, Yongguang Zhang, Stephen Sitch, Jing M. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas Dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMega-Environmental scienceEcosystemNet (polyhedron)Primary productionAtmospheric sciencesGeologyEcologyBiologyMathematicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate national terrestrial net ecosystem exchange estimates are crucial for the global stocktake. Net ecosystem exchange estimates from different inversion models vary greatly at national scale, and the relative impacts of prior fluxes and observations on these inversions remain unclear. Here we estimate the net ecosystem exchange of 51 land regions for the 2017-2019 period, focusing on the 10 largest countries, using prior fluxes from 12 terrestrial biosphere models and XCO2 retrievals from GOSAT and OCO-2 satellites as constraints. The average uncertainty reduction for the 10 countries increases from 37% with GOSAT and 45% with OCO-2 to 50% with combined observations, indicating a trend towards robust estimates. At finer spatial scales, even with combined observations, the uncertainty reduction is only 33%, i.e., the prior flux dominates the estimates. This finding underscores the critical importance of integrating multi-source observations and refining prior fluxes to improve the accuracy of carbon flux estimates. Choice of ecosystem model and input satellite data has a significant impact on modelled carbon dioxide flux and its associated uncertainty for large countries, according to atmospheric inversions using GOSAT and OCO-2 data.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.479
Threshold uncertainty score0.724

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.212 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications Earth & EnvironmentSame topicAtmospheric and Environmental Gas DynamicsFrench-language works237,207