Modelling snow water equivalent and spring runoff in a boreal watershed, James Bay, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The hydrology of boreal regions is strongly influenced by seasonal snow accumulation and melt. In this study, we compare simulations of snow water equivalent (SWE) and streamflow by using the hydrological model HYDROTEL with two contrasting approaches for snow modelling: a mixed degree-day/energy balance model (small number of inputs, but several calibration parameters needed) and the thermodynamic model CROCUS (large number of inputs, but no calibration parameter needed). The study site, in Northern Quebec, Canada was equipped with a ground-based gamma ray sensor measuring the SWE continuously for 5 years in a small forest clearing. The first simulation of CROCUS showed a tendency to underestimate SWE, attributable to bias in the meteorological inputs. We found that it was appropriate to use a threshold of 2 °C to separate rain and snow. We also applied a correction to account for snowfall undercatch by the precipitation gauge. After these modifications to the input dataset, we noticed that CROCUS clearly overestimated the SWE, likely as a result of not including loss in SWE because of blowing snow sublimation and relocation. To correct this, we included into CROCUS a simple parameterisation effective after a certain wind speed threshold, after which the thermodynamic model performed much better than the traditional mixed degree-day/energy balance model. HYDROTEL was then used to simulate streamflow with both snow models. With CROCUS, the main peak flow could be captured, but the second peak because of delayed snowmelt from forested areas could not be reproduced due to a lack of sub-canopy radiation data to feed CROCUS. Despite the relative homogeneity of the boreal landscape, data inputs from each land cover type are needed to generate satisfying simulation of the spring runoff. Copyright © 2013 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 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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".