MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1921389114 · doi:10.1175/jcli-d-15-0229.1

Characterization of Northern Hemisphere Snow Water Equivalent Datasets, 1981–2010

2015· article· en· W1921389114 on OpenAlexafffund
Lawrence Mudryk, Chris Derksen, Paul J. Kushner, Ross Brown

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Climate · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsOuranosEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Toronto
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGoddard Space Flight CenterNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsClimatologyNorthern HemisphereEnvironmental scienceSnowBorealArcticSouthern HemisphereForcing (mathematics)GeographyMeteorologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Five, daily, gridded, Northern Hemisphere snow water equivalent (SWE) datasets are analyzed over the 1981–2010 period in order to quantify the spatial and temporal consistency of satellite retrievals, land surface assimilation systems, physical snow models, and reanalyses. While the climatologies of total Northern Hemisphere snow water mass (SWM) vary among the datasets by as much as 50%, their interannual variability and daily anomalies are comparable, showing moderate to good temporal correlations (between 0.60 and 0.85) on both interannual and intraseasonal time scales. Wintertime trends of total Northern Hemisphere SWM are consistently negative over the 1981–2010 period among the five datasets but vary in strength by a factor of 2–3. Examining spatial patterns of SWE indicates that the datasets are most consistent with one another over boreal forest regions compared to Arctic and alpine regions. Additionally, the datasets derived using relatively recent reanalyses are strongly correlated with one another and show better correlations with the satellite product [the European Space Agency (ESA)’s Global Snow Monitoring for Climate Research (GlobSnow)] than do those using older reanalyses. Finally, a comparison of eight reanalysis datasets over the 2001–10 period shows that land surface model differences control the majority of spread in the climatological value of SWM, while meteorological forcing differences control the majority of the spread in temporal correlations of SWM anomalies.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.083
Threshold uncertainty score0.166

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations271
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ClimateSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207