Comparing Evapotranspiration from Eddy Covariance Measurements, Water Budgets, Remote Sensing, and Land Surface Models over Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study compares six evapotranspiration ET products for Canada’s landmass, namely, eddy covariance EC measurements; surface water budget ET; remote sensing ET from MODIS; and land surface model (LSM) ET from the Community Land Model (CLM), the Ecological Assimilation of Land and Climate Observations (EALCO) model, and the Variable Infiltration Capacity model (VIC). The ET climatology over the Canadian landmass is characterized and the advantages and limitations of the datasets are discussed. The EC measurements have limited spatial coverage, making it difficult for model validations at the national scale. Water budget ET has the largest uncertainty because of data quality issues with precipitation in mountainous regions and in the north. MODIS ET shows relatively large uncertainty in cold seasons and sparsely vegetated regions. The LSM products cover the entire landmass and exhibit small differences in ET among them. Annual ET from the LSMs ranges from small negative values to over 600 mm across the landmass, with a countrywide average of 256 ± 15 mm. Seasonally, the countrywide average monthly ET varies from a low of about 3 mm in four winter months (November–February) to 67 ± 7 mm in July. The ET uncertainty is scale dependent. Larger regions tend to have smaller uncertainties because of the offset of positive and negative biases within the region. More observation networks and better quality controls are critical to improving ET estimates. Future techniques should also consider a hybrid approach that integrates strengths of the various ET products to help reduce uncertainties in ET estimation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".