MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966528669 · doi:10.1139/x10-227

Effects of needleleaf forest cover on radiation and snowmelt dynamics in the Canadian Rocky Mountains

2011· article· en· W1966528669 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
C. R. Ellis, John W. Pomeroy, Richard Essery, Timothy E. Link

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Forest Research · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UK
KeywordsSnowmeltShortwave radiationSnowSnowpackEnvironmental scienceForest coverPhysical geographyAtmospheric sciencesEcologyGeologyGeographyRadiationGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Radiation is the main energy source for snowpack warming and melt in mountain needleleaf forests, and runoff from these forests is the main contributor to spring river flows in western North America. Utilizing extensive field observations, the effect of needleleaf forest cover on radiation and snowmelt timing was quantified at pine and spruce forest sites and nearby clearings of varying slope and aspect in an eastern Canadian Rocky Mountain headwater basin. Compared with open clearing sites, shortwave radiation was much reduced under forest cover, resulting in smaller differences in melt timing between forested slopes relative to open slopes with different aspects. In contrast, longwave radiation to snow was substantially enhanced under forest cover, especially at the dense spruce forest sites where longwave radiation dominated total energy for snowmelt. In both pine and spruce environments, forest cover acted to substantially reduce total radiation to snow and delay snowmelt timing on south-facing slopes while increasing total radiation and advancing snowmelt timing on north-facing slopes. Results strongly suggest that impacts on radiation to snow and snowmelt timing from changes in mountain forest cover will depend much on the slope and aspect at which changes occur.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score0.290

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.215 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations97
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Forest ResearchSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207