Modeling snow accumulation and ablation processes in forested environments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effects of forest canopies on snow accumulation and ablation processes can be very important for the hydrology of midlatitude and high‐latitude areas. A mass and energy balance model for snow accumulation and ablation processes in forested environments was developed utilizing extensive measurements of snow interception and release in a maritime mountainous site in Oregon. The model was evaluated using 2 years of weighing lysimeter data and was able to reproduce the snow water equivalent (SWE) evolution throughout winters both beneath the canopy and in the nearby clearing, with correlations to observations ranging from 0.81 to 0.99. Additionally, the model was evaluated using measurements from a Boreal Ecosystem‐Atmosphere Study (BOREAS) field site in Canada to test the robustness of the canopy snow interception algorithm in a much different climate. Simulated SWE was relatively close to the observations for the forested sites, with discrepancies evident in some cases. Although the model formulation appeared robust for both types of climates, sensitivity to parameters such as snow roughness length and maximum interception capacity suggested the magnitude of improvements of SWE simulations that might be achieved by calibration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".