MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2031754570 · doi:10.5194/nhess-10-1317-2010

Spatial distribution of surface hoar crystals in sparse forests

2010· article· en· W2031754570 on OpenAlexafffund
Cora Shea, Bruce Jamieson

Bibliographic record

VenueNatural hazards and earth system sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSnowEnvironmental scienceTerrainScale (ratio)Remote sensingAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyGeologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Surface hoar size and location relate directly to avalanche initiation trigger points, and they do so in small-scale spatial distributions. Physically, surface hoar will grow where the snow surface is cold relative to the air and water vapour is plentiful. Vapour aside, snow cools at night primarily by longwave radiation emittance. Emittance can be restricted by clouds, trees, and terrain features. With 96 independent spatial point samples of surface hoar size, we show the extreme small-scale size variation that trees can create, ranging from 0 to 14 mm in an area of 402 m2. We relate this size variation to the effects of trees by using satellite photography to estimate the amount that trees impinge on sky view for each point. Though physically related to longwave escape, radiation balance can be as difficult to estimate as surface hoar size itself. Thus, we estimate point surface hoar size by expected maximum areal crystal size and dry terrain greyscale value only. We confirm this relation by using it at a different area and in a different formation cycle. There, its overall average error was 1.5 mm for an area with surface hoar sizes ranging from 0 to 7 mm.

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 score0.080
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.226
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations15
Published2010
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNatural hazards and earth system sciencesSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207