Global Modeling, Field Campaigns, Upscaling and Ray Desjardins
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the early 1980's, it became apparent that land surface radiation and energy budgets were unrealistically represented in Global Circulation models (GCM's), Shortly thereafter, it became clear that the land carbon budget was also poorly represented in Earth System Models (ESM's), A number of scientific communities, including GCM/ESM modelers, micrometeorologists, satellite data specialists and plant physiologists, came together to design field experiments that could be used to develop and validate the contemporary prototype land surface models. These experiments were designed to measure land surface fluxes of radiation, heat, water vapor and CO2 using a network of flux towers and other plot-scale techniques, coincident with satellite measurements of related state variables, The interdisciplinary teams involved in these experiments quickly became aware of the scale gap between plot-scale measurements (approx 10 - 100m), satellite measurements (100m - 10 km), and GCM grid areas (l0 - 200km). At the time, there was no established flux measurement capability to bridge these scale gaps. Then, a Canadian science learn led by Ray Desjardins started to actively participate in the design and execution of the experiments, with airborne eddy correlation providing the radically innovative bridge across the scale gaps, In a succession of brilliantly executed field campaigns followed up by convincing scientific analyses, they demonstrated that airborne eddy correlation allied with satellite data was the most powerful upscaling tool available to the community, The rest is history: the realism and credibility of weather and climate models has been enormously improved enormously over the last 25 years with immense benefits to the public and policymakers.
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 | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".