MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1991548532 · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-13-055.1

Evaluation of CLASS 2.7 and 3.5 Simulations of Snow Properties from the Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM4) over Québec, Canada*

2014· article· en· W1991548532 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alexandre Langlois, Jean Bergeron, Ross Brown, Alain Royer, Richard Harvey, Alexandre Roy, L. Wang, Nathalie Thériault

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrometeorology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsOuranosEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Nuclear Safety CommissionNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSnowpackSnowAlbedo (alchemy)Environmental scienceClimatologyClimate modelMeteorologySnow coverAtmospheric sciencesClimate changeGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Snow cover simulations from versions 2.7 and 3.5 of the Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS) coupled to the Canadian Regional Climate Model, version 4 (CRCM4), are evaluated over northern Québec and the larger Québec domain using in situ and remotely sensed datasets. Version 2.7 of CLASS has been used in the operational version of CRCM4 at Ouranos since 2006. Version 3.5 includes a number of improvements to the snow processes as well as a more realistic parameterization of snow thermal conductivity. The evaluation shows that version 3.5 provides improved simulations of snow water equivalent, density, depth, and snowpack temperature values. However, snowpack density still contains systematic biases during the snow season that need to be addressed. The snow albedo parameterization in CLASS was found to be very sensitive to an empirical snowfall rate threshold for albedo refreshment and does not keep track of the snow accumulation history in estimating the snow surface albedo. A modified albedo scheme based on snow-specific surface areas is proposed to address this problem.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.104
Threshold uncertainty score0.291

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.180 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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