MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976698687 · doi:10.1002/hyp.6118

Blowing snow studies in the Canadian Arctic Shelf Exchange Study, 2003–04

2006· article· en· W1976698687 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Sergiy Savelyev, Mark Gordon, John Hanesiak, Tim Papakyriakou, Peter A. Taylor

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaYork University
FundersCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric Sciences
KeywordsSnowEnvironmental scienceArcticVisibilityWinter stormMeteorologySnow fieldRelative humidityWind speedAtmospheric sciencesBaySublimation (psychology)Snow coverPhysical geographyClimatologyGeologyOceanographyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Between mid January and early May 2004, during the Canadian Arctic Shelf Exchange Study 2003–04 expedition, we conducted a field project in which we deployed blowing‐snow particle counters, visibility sensors, a FlowCapt device, snow bags, an electric field meter and other instruments related to the observation of drifting and blowing snow on first‐year ice in Franklin Bay, Northwest Territories, Canada. Average snow depth was 7 cm at the beginning of the campaign and increased to 17 cm towards the end. Snow density in the first 8 cm of snow cover varied from 80 to 450 g m−3, with a median value of 240 g m−3. Basic results will be presented that relate particle counter profiles, wind speed and other data to visibility. We discuss threshold conditions for blowing snow, heat and water vapour fluxes and the electric field. Relative humidity with respect to ice was generally greater than 95% and sublimation rates are believed to have been low. Copyright © 2006 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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.076

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.071
GPT teacher head0.267
Teacher spread0.196 · 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

Citations62
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207