MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999142259 · doi:10.5558/tfc79307-2

Relations between peak snow accumulation and canopy density

2003· article· en· W1999142259 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Patrick Teti

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Forestry Chronicle · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicForest ecology and management
Canadian institutionsGovernment of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCanopySnowInterceptionEnvironmental scienceElevation (ballistics)Atmospheric sciencesZenithHydrology (agriculture)Physical geographyForestryEcologyGeographyMeteorologyMathematicsRemote sensingBiologyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snow was monitored for five years in plots from which 30% of the timber had been previously removed in the form of group selection and in an unlogged control at a sub-alpine site in British Columbia. Average peak snow water equivalents (SWE) ranged from 38 to 52 cm and occurred between late March and mid-April. Canopy density was measured in circular areas of sky in 10-degree increments from the zenith to the horizon. The optimum parameter for explaining the variability of peak SWE was canopy density within a 60- to 80-degree-wide cone. Results suggest that where openings are 1 ha or less, peak SWE approached a locally consistent maximum value when canopy density approached zero. This improves our ability to predict the effects of group selection on snow accumulation in high elevation forests. Key words: forest canopy, snow interception, snow accumulation, group selection

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)0.000
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 score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.231 · 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

Citations19
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Forestry ChronicleSame topicForest ecology and managementFrench-language works237,207