Snow-depth observations by adventurers traveling on Arctic sea ice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Snow depth is a key parameter for assessing the sea-ice mass budget in the Arctic and for the surface energy balance at the atmosphere–snow–ice–ocean interfaces. However, scientific expeditions to the high Arctic Ocean are rare, and for large parts of the year no snow and ice data are collected in situ in most regions. Therefore any additional in situ observations of snow depth are of interest to the scientific community. Arctic adventurers and tourists are among the most frequent visitors to the Arctic Ocean and North Pole. If properly trained and carefully adhering to standard protocols, they could collect valuable snow-depth data from large regions. Here we analyse such data from four Arctic basin ski traverses carried out between 1994 and 2007. Individual datasets show characteristic regional differences of snow thickness, which provide invaluable information for the validation of models and satellite data. the observations were made applying a continuously upgraded observation guideline scheme. Earlier observations were based on a relatively broad view of easily observable snow and ice parameters. Improvements included requirements of more detailed snow-thickness surveys in order to observe the spatial variability over varying sea-ice surfaces in a better way. Possibilities for, and limitations of, ice-thickness estimates and measurements are also discussed. Often, assessment of ice thickness is more problematic since measurements are either time-consuming or biased, meaning that possibilities for collecting large datasets are limited.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".