An Empirical Blowing Snow Forecast Technique for the Canadian Arctic and the Prairie Provinces
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Blowing snow has a major impact on transportation and public safety. The goal of this study is to provide an operational technique for forecasting high-impact blowing snow on the Canadian arctic and the Prairie provinces using historical meteorological data. The focus is to provide some guidance as to the probability of reduced visibilities (e.g., less than 1 km) in blowing snow given a forecast wind speed and direction. The wind character associated with blowing snow was examined using a large database consisting of up to 40 yr of hourly observations at 15 locations in the Prairie provinces and at 17 locations in the arctic. Instances of blowing snow were divided into cases with and without concurrent falling snow. The latter group was subdivided by the time since the last snowfall in an attempt to account for aging processes of the snowpack. An empirical scheme was developed that could discriminate conditions that produce significantly reduced visibility in blowing snow using wind speed, air temperature, and time since last snowfall as predictors. This process was evaluated using actual hourly observations to compute the probability of detection, false alarm ratio, credibility, and critical success index. A critical success index as high as 66% was achieved. This technique can be used to give an objective first guess of the likelihood of high-impact blowing snow using common forecast parameters.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".