MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1847029641 · doi:10.1002/2015rg000481

Measurement of the physical properties of the snowpack

2015· article· en· W1847029641 on OpenAlexaff
Nicholas Kinar, John W. Pomeroy

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews of Geophysics · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowpackSnowInstrumentation (computer programming)Context (archaeology)Remote sensingEnvironmental scienceCalibrationMeteorologyComputer scienceGeologyGeographyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper reviews measurement techniques and corresponding devices used to determine the physical properties of the seasonal snowpack from distances close to the ground surface. The review is placed in the context of the need for scientific observations of snowpack variables that provide inputs for predictive hydrological models that help to advance scientific understanding of geophysical processes related to snow in the near‐surface cryosphere. Many of these devices used to measure snow are invasive and require the snowpack to be disrupted, thereby precluding the possibility for multiple measurements to be made at the same sampling location. Moreover, many devices rely on the use of empirical calibration equations that may not be valid at all geographic locations. The spatial density of observations with most snow measurement devices is often inadequate. There is a need for improved automation of snowpack measurement instrumentation with an emphasis on field‐based feedback of measurement validity in lieu of postprocessing of samples or data at a lab or office location. The scientific future of snow measurement instrumentation thereby requires a synthesis between science and engineering principles that takes into consideration geophysics and the physics of device operation.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.120
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.120 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations300
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews of GeophysicsSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207