Snow mechanical properties variation at slope scale, implication for snowpack stability assessment and snow cover models
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Snow avalanches represent a natural hazard for infrastructures and backcountry recreationists. Risk assessment of avalanche danger is difficult due to sparse nature of available observations informing on snowpack mechanical and geophysical properties. Spatial variability of these properties also add complexity to the decision-making and route finding in avalanche terrain for backcountry recreationists. Snow cover models simulate snow mechanical properties at fairly good resolution (around 100 m). However, small-scale variability such at the slope scale (5-50 m) remains critical to monitor given that slope stability and the possible size of an avalanche are governed by such scale. In order to better understand and predict the spatial variability at the slope scale, this work explores linkages between snow mechanical properties and microtopographic indicators. First, we compare their covariance models and scaling properties. Then, we predict snow mechanical properties, including point snow stability, using GAM spatial models (Generalized additives models) with microtopographic indicators as covariates. Snow mechanical properties such as snow density, elastic modulus, shear modulus and snow microstructural strength were measured at multiple locations over several studied slopes (20-40 m) using a high-resolution penetrometer (SMP), in Rogers Pass, British-Columbia, and Mt Albert, Québec. Point snow stability such as the skier crack length, critical propagation crack length and a skier stability index were derived using the snow mechanical properties from SMP measurements. Microtopographic indicators such as the topographic position index (TPI), vegetation height and proximity, Winstral index (wind-exposed/sheltered area) and potential radiation index were derived from UAV surveys with sub-meter resolution. We computed the variogram and log-log variogram of snow mechanical properties and microtopographic indicators. The comparison shows some similarities in autocorrelation distances for snow depth, snow density, snow microstructural strength, TPI, vegetation height and the Winstral index. GAM models suggest several significant covariates such as snow depth and snow surface slope, but also TPI, Winstral index, vegetation height and distance to vegetation. The percentage of variance explained is around 50% ranging from 20% to 80%. Models predictions were better for the slab depth and slab density with higher variance explained (around 60/70%) with lower RMSE than point snow stability indicator (around 40%) with higher RMSE. At the slope scale, snow surface slope and snow depth remain the most important spatial indicators of point snow stability for backcountry recreationists in their route-finding decision making. The point snow stability map generated represents a good teaching material in avalanche skill training and awareness course. In future work, assuming that snow cover models simulate the mean snow mechanical properties of a simulation cell, the covariance function of microtropographic indicators could be used to infer the covariance function of snow mechanical properties using a gaussian process/Bayesian framework as a sub-grid parametrization scheme.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».