MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7033778165

Satellite observations of annual variability in terrestrial carbon cycles and seasonal growing seasons at high northern latitudes

2004· article· en· W7033778165 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Mathematics Enthusiast · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAmphibian and Reptile Biology
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsVegetation (pathology)SatelliteGrowing seasonLatitudePrimary productionCanopySeasonalityAnnual cycleProductivity
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Global satellite remote sensing records show evidence of recent vegetation greening and an advance in the onset of the growing season at high latitudes. We apply a terrestrial net primary production (NPP) model driven by satellite observations of vegetation properties and daily surface meteorology from an atmospheric GCM to assess spatial patterns, annual variability, and recent trends in vegetation productivity across Alaska and northwest Canada. We compare these results with regional observations of the timing of growing season onset derived from satellite passive microwave remote sensing measurements from the Special Sensor Microwave Imager, SSM/I. Our results show substantial variability in annual NPP for the region that appears to be driven largely by variations in canopy photosynthetic leaf area and average summer air temperatures. Variability in maximum canopy leaf area and NPP also correspond closely to remote sensing observations of the timing of the primary seasonal thaw event in spring. Relatively early spring thawing appears to enhance NPP, while delays in seasonal thawing and growing season onset reduce annual vegetation productivity. Our results indicate that advances in seasonal thawing and spring and summer warming for the region associated with global change are promoting a general increase in NPP.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.271
Threshold uncertainty score0.302

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.207 · 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 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Mathematics EnthusiastSame topicAmphibian and Reptile BiologyFrench-language works237,207