Estimating surface sublimation losses from snowpacks in a mountain catchment using eddy covariance and turbulent transfer calculations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Sublimation is a critical component of the snow cover mass balance. Although sublimation can be directly measured using eddy covariance (EC), such measurements are relatively uncommon in complex mountainous environments. The EC measurements of surface snowpack sublimation from three consecutive winter seasons (2004, 2005 and 2006) at a wind‐exposed and wind‐sheltered site were analysed to characterise sublimation in mountainous terrain. During the 2006 snow season, snow surface and near‐surface air temperature, humidity and wind were also measured, permitting the calculation of sublimation rates and a comparison with EC measurements. This comparison showed that measured and simulated sublimation was very similar at the exposed site but less so at the sheltered site. Wind speeds at the exposed site were nearly four times than that at the sheltered site, and the exposed site yielded measured sublimation that was two times the magnitude of that at the sheltered site. The time variation of measured sublimation showed diurnal increases in the early afternoon and increased rates overall as the snow season progressed. Measured mean daily sublimation rates were 0.39 and 0.15 mm day −1 at the exposed and sheltered sites, respectively. At the exposed site, measured sublimation accounted for 16% and 41% of the maximum snow accumulation in 2006 and 2005, respectively. At the sheltered site, measured seasonal sublimation was approximately 4% in 2004 and 2006 and 8% in 2005 of the maximum snow water equivalent. Simulated sublimation was only available for 2006 and suggested smaller but comparable percentages to the sublimation estimated from observations. At the exposed site, a total of 42 mm sublimated for the snow season, which constituted 12% of the maximum accumulation. At the sheltered site, 17 mm (2.2% of maximum accumulation) was sublimated over the snow season. Copyright © 2011 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".