MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FOREST GROWTH IMPACT ON PEAK SNOW PACK MEASUREMENTS AT LONG TERM SNOW COURSES<sup>1</sup>

2004· article· en· W2041861342 on OpenAlexaff
Duane A. Wells, Paul Doyle

Bibliographic record

VenueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsThompson Rivers University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowpackSnowEnvironmental scienceWater yearPrecipitationSurface runoffSnowmeltHydrology (agriculture)Snow coverWater equivalentStreamflowPhysical geographyAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyDrainage basinGeographyGeologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Snow course surveys in late winter provide stream‐flow forecasters with their best information for making water supply and flood forecasts for the subsequent spring and summer runoff period in mountainous regions of western North America. Snow survey data analyses are generally based on a 30‐year “normal” period. It is well documented that forest cover changes over time will affect snow accumulation on the ground within forests. This paper seeks to determine if forest cover changes over decades at long term snow courses decrease measured peak snow water equivalent (SWE) enough to affect runoff prediction. Annual peak SWE records were analyzed at four snow courses in two different forest types having at least 25 years of snowpack data to detect any decreases in SWE due to forest growth. No statistically significant decreases in annual peak SWE over time were found at any of these four snow courses. The wide range of annual winter precipitation and correspondingly highly variable peak snowpack accumulation, as well as many other weather and site variables, masked any minor trends in the data.

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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.233
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations2
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources AssociationSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207