MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W6920542261 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.14615315

Additional file 1 of Strong controls of daily minimum temperature on the autumn photosynthetic phenology of subtropical vegetation in China

2021· article· en· W6920542261 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEvergreenSubtropicsBiomeDeciduousPhenologyGrowing seasonVegetation (pathology)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Additional file 1: Figure S1. The spatial patterns of the end of growing season (EGS) in subtropical vegetation in China from 2000 to 2018: NIRv dataset. a) derivative method and b) dynamic threshold method. Inset plots (the bottom-left of each figure) display the frequency distribution of EGS. Figure S2. Comparison of the end of growing season (EGS) retrieved from NIRv and flux data. Two ecological monitoring stations were listed, including Qianyanzhou station (QYZ) and Dinghushan station (DHS). Both methods were listed, including derivative and dynamic threshold methods. Figure S3. Linear trends of the end of growing season (EGS) across China’s Subtropical biomes from 2000 to 2018. Five main vegetation types in study area were listed, including evergreen coniferous forest (ECF), evergreen broadleaved forest (EBF), deciduous broadleaved forest (DBF), shrub, and grassland. a) derivative and b) dynamic threshold method. A negative value indicates an advance, and a positive value indicates a delay. * indicates statistically significant trends at the 90% (P < 0.1) level, ** indicates statistically significant trends at the 95% (P < 0.05) level. Figure S4. The spatial patterns of the linear trend of the end of growing season (EGS) of subtropical vegetation in China from 2000 to 2018: NIRv dataset. a) derivative method and b) dynamic threshold method. Inset plots (the bottom-left of each figure) display the frequency distribution of change trend. The proportions of positive (P) and negative (N) (proportions of significant in parentheses) trends are provided. Figure S5. Linear trends of the end of growing season (EGS) across China’s Subtropical biomes from 2000 to 2018: NIRv dataset. Five main vegetation types in study area were listed, including evergreen coniferous forest (ECF), evergreen broadleaved forest (EBF), deciduous broadleaved forest (DBF), shrub, and grassland. a) derivative and b) dynamic threshold method. A negative value indicates an advance, and a positive value indicates a delay. * indicates statistically significant trends at the 90% (P < 0.1) level, ** indicates statistically significant trends at the 95% (P < 0.05) level. Figure S6. Optimal preseason periods depicting correlations between the end of growing season (EGS) derived from SIF data and climatic factors: Precipitation (Pre), maximum temperature (Tmax) and minimum temperature (Tmin). Two methods (derivative and dynamic threshold methods) were listed. Figure S7. Sensitivity of end of growing season (EGS) to climatic factors in different vegetation types. Five main vegetation types in study area were listed, including evergreen coniferous forest (ECF), evergreen broadleaved forest (EBF), deciduous broadleaved forest (DBF), shrub, and grassland. a) derivative and b) dynamic threshold method.1 day·sd− 1 denoted that an increase of 1 standard deviation (sd) in the climatic factors delayed or advanced the EGS by 1 day. Figure S8. The seasonal cycles of SIF and flux tower GPP from 2003 to 2010. Table S1. The change rate and significance of three climate factors in different vegetation areas from 2000 to 2018, including precipitation (Pre), maximum temperature (Tmax) and minimum temperature (Tmin). Five main biomes in this study area were listed, such as evergreen coniferous forest (ECF), evergreen broadleaved forest (EBF), deciduous broadleaved forest (DBF), shrub, and grassland.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.538

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6230.069

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.197
Teacher spread0.188 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshare→Same topicRemote Sensing in Agriculture→French-language works237,207→