Forcing the snow-cover model SNOWPACK with forecasted weather data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Avalanche danger is often estimated based on snow cover stratigraphy and snow stability data. In Canada, single forecasting regions are very large (>50 000 km2) and snow cover data are often not available. To provide additional information on the snow cover and its seasonal evolution the Swiss snow cover model SNOWPACK was therefore coupled with a regional weather forecasting model GEM15. The output of GEM15 was compared to meteorological as well as snow cover data from Mt. Fidelity, British Columbia, Canada, for five winters between 2005 and 2010. Precipitation amounts are most difficult to predict for weather forecasting models. Therefore, we first assess the capability of the model chain to forecast new snow amounts and consequently snow depth. Forecasted precipitation amounts were generally over-estimated. The forecasted data were therefore filtered and used as input for the snow cover model. Comparison between the model output and manual observations showed that after pre-processing the input data the snow depth and new snow events were well modelled. In a case study two key factors of snow cover instability, i.e. surface hoar formation and crust formation were investigated at a single point. Over half of the relevant critical layers were reproduced. Overall, the model chain shows promising potential as a future forecasting tool for avalanche warning services in Canadian data sparse areas and could thus well be applied to similarly large regions elsewhere. However, a more detailed analysis of the simulated snow cover structure is still required.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 teacher head, 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".