MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1655231529 · doi:10.1029/2008wr007370

Modeling of high‐latitude spring freshet from AMSR‐E passive microwave observations

2009· article· en· W1655231529 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fenglin Yan, J. M. Ramage, Rose McKenney

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowmeltStreamflowSnowEnvironmental scienceWater yearTributaryLatitudeClimatologySurface runoffMeltwaterHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyGeologyDrainage basinGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snowmelt runoff in high latitudes has significant impacts on global climatic and hydrologic systems. Snowmelt timing and snow water equivalent (SWE) from the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR‐E) are inputs to the new flux‐based SWEHydro model to simulate the spring streamflow without meteorological data for high‐latitude, snow‐dominated drainages. The model was developed for the Ross River (7250 km2) and tested on the Pelly River (49,000 km2), nested tributaries to the Yukon River. The model uses four parameters: snowmelt rate during and after the melt transition (as defined by passive microwave observations), and flow timing during and after the melt transition. A normalized mismatch function was used to calculate the error compared with observed discharge. Curves were ranked by lowest error in freshet timing, peak timing, and magnitude. Melt timing is a good predictor of freshet timing across years and basins. The system is most sensitive to the flow timing after the transition.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207