MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2057854790 · doi:10.1002/hyp.7131

A new temperature based method to separate rain and snow

2008· article· en· W2057854790 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Lethbridge
FundersU.S. Army Corps of Engineers
KeywordsSnowPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceRange (aeronautics)Mean radiant temperatureClimatologyClimate changeSensitivity (control systems)MeteorologyStatisticsMathematicsGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract This paper presents the development and testing of a new method to estimate daily snowfall from precipitation and associated temperature records. The new method requires two variables; the threshold mean daily air temperature at which 50% of precipitation is considered snow, and the temperature range within which mixed precipitation can occur. Sensitivity analyses using 15 climate stations across south‐western Alberta, Canada, and ranging from prairie to alpine regions investigates the sensitivity of those two variables on mean annual snowfall (MAS), the coefficient of determination, and the MAS‐weighted coefficient of determination. Existing methods, including the static threshold method, one linear transition method used by Quick and Pipes, and the Leavesley method employed in the PRMS hydrological modelling system are compared with the new method, using a total of 963 years of daily data from the 15 climate stations used for the sensitivity analyses. Four different approaches to using the two input variables (threshold temperature and range) were tested and statistically compared: mean annual variables based on the 15 stations, mean annual variables for each station, mean monthly variables for each station, and a sine curve representing seasonal variation of the variables. In almost all cases the proposed new method resulted in higher MAS‐weighted coefficients of determination, and, on average, they were significantly different from those of other methods. The paper concludes with a decision tree to help decide which method and approach to apply under a variety of data availabilities. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.224 · 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