Sensitivity of model parameterizations for simulated latent heat flux at the snow surface for complex mountain sites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The snowcover energy balance is typically dominated by net radiation and sensible and latent heat fluxes. Validation of the two latter components is rare and often difficult to undertake at complex mountain sites. Latent heat flux, the focus of this paper, is the primary coupling mechanism between the snow surface and the atmosphere. It accounts for the critical exchange of mass (sublimation or condensation), along with the associated snowcover energy loss or gain. Measured and modelled latent heat fluxes at a wind-exposed and wind-sheltered site were compared to evaluate variability in model parameters. A well-tested and well-validated snowcover energy balance model, Snobal, was selected for this comparison because of previously successful applications of the model at these sites and because of the adjustability of the parameters specific to latent heat transfer within the model. Simulated latent heat flux and snow water equivalent (SWE) were not sensitive to different formulations of the stability profile functions associated with heat transfer calculations. The model parameters of snow surface roughness length and active snow layer thickness were used to improve latent heat flux simulations while retaining accuracy in the simulation of the SWE at an exposed and sheltered study site. Optimal parameters for simulated latent heat flux and SWE were found at the exposed site with a shorter roughness length and thicker active layer, and at the sheltered site with a longer roughness length and thinner active layer. These findings were linked to physical characteristics of the study sites and will allow for adoption into other snow models that use similar parameters. Physical characteristics of wind exposure and cover could also be used to distribute critical parameters in a spatially distributed modelling domain and aid in parameter selection for application to other watersheds where detailed information is not available. Copyright © 2012 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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".