Performance characteristics of a new electronic snow water equivalent sensor in different climates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The US Army ERDC CRREL and the US Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service developed a square electronic snow water equivalent (e‐SWE) sensor as an alternative to using fluid‐filled snow pillows to measure SWE. The sensors consist of a centre panel to measure SWE and eight outer panels to buffer edge stress concentrations. Seven 3 m square e‐SWE sensors were installed in five different climate zones. During the 2011–2012 winter, 1.8 and 1.2 m square e‐SWE sensors were installed and operated in Oregon. With the exception of New York State and Newfoundland, the e‐SWE sensors accurately measured SWE, with R2 values between the sensor and manual SWE measurements of between 0.86 and 0.98. The e‐SWE sensor at Hogg Pass, Oregon, accurately measured SWE during the past 8 years of operations. In the thin, icy snow of New York during midwinter 2008–2009, the e‐SWE sensors overmeasured SWE because of edge stress concentrations associated with strong icy layers and a shallow snow cover. The New York e‐SWE sensors' measurement accuracy improved in spring 2009 and further improved during the 2011–2012 winter with operating experience. At Santiam Junction, measured SWE from the 1.8 and 1.2 m square e‐SWE sensors agreed well with the snow pillow, 3 m square e‐SWE sensor, and manual SWE measurements until February 2013, when dust and gravel blew onto the testing area resulting in anomalous measurements. © 2014 The Authors. Hydrological Processes published by 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.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".