NEW OBSERVATION GUIDELINES FOR AVALANCHE PROGRAMS IN THE UNITED STATES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
13 ABSTRACT: For over 35 years avalanche workers in United States used observations described on the blue and green published by USDA Forest Service for standard snow, weather and avalanche observations. Those observation outlines served U.S. avalanche community well and produced a valuable long-term data set. However, a new and updated set of guidelines are now needed since blue and green sheets are out of print, and number, types and needs of avalanche programs in U.S. have changed. The American Avalanche Association and USDA Forest Service National Avalanche Center joined forces to research, write and publish a new set of observational guidelines to support avalanche programs in United States. This effort began by licensing Canadian Avalanche Association's Observational Guidelines and Recording Standards for Weather, Snowpack, and Avalanches. This well- established document along with blue and green sheets formed a solid foundation for new guidelines, which were specifically developed to fit diverse needs of avalanche programs in U.S. The resulting document, Snow, Weather, and Avalanches: Observational Guidelines for Avalanche Programs in United States, was published by American Avalanche Association in fall of 2004.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 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 teacher head, 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".