MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1576810658 · doi:10.1002/hyp.9248

Sensitivity of snowmelt hydrology in Marmot Creek, Alberta, to forest cover disturbance

2012· article· en· W1576810658 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research ChairsCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsSnowmeltEnvironmental scienceStreamflowInterceptionHydrology (agriculture)Canopy interceptionMeltwaterSnowExperimental forestDrainage basinEcologyForestryGeologySoil waterThroughfallSoil scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract A model including slope effects on snow redistribution, interception and energetics was developed using the Cold Regions Hydrological Model platform, parameterized with minimal calibration and manipulated to simulate the impacts of forest disturbance on mountain hydrology. A total of 40 forest disturbance scenarios were compared with the current land cover for four simulation years. Disturbance scenarios ranged from the impact of pine beetle kill of lodgepole pine to clear‐cutting of north‐ or south‐facing slopes, forest fire and salvage logging. Pine beetle impacts were small in all cases with increases in snowmelt volume of less than 10% and streamflow volume of less than 2%. This small impact is attributed to the low and relatively dry elevations of lodgepole pine forests in the basin. Forest disturbances due to fire and clear‐cutting affected much larger areas and higher elevations of the basin and were generally more than twice as effective as pine beetle in increasing snowmelt or streamflow. For complete forest cover removal by burning and salvage logging, a 45% increase in snowmelt volume was simulated; however, this only translated into a 5% increase in spring and summer streamflow volume. Forest burning with the retention of standing burned trunks was the most effective forest cover treatment for increasing streamflow (up to 8%) because of its minimizing of winter snow sublimation losses from interception and blowing snow. However, increases in streamflow volumes were almost entirely due to reductions in intercepted snow sublimation with decreasing canopy coverage. Peak daily streamflow discharges responded more strongly to forest cover disturbance than did seasonal streamflow volumes, with increases of almost 25% in peak streamflow from the removal of forest canopy by fire and the retention of standing burned trunks. Peak flow was most effectively increased by forest removal on south‐facing slopes and level sites. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.086
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.229
Teacher spread0.205 · 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