MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065362406 · doi:10.3189/172756404781814762

Heat flow from wet to dry snowpack layers and associated faceting

2004· article· en· W2065362406 on OpenAlexafffund
Bruce Jamieson, Charles Fierz

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Glaciology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaParks Canada
KeywordsSnowpackSnowGeologyLatent heatLayer (electronics)SlabFlow (mathematics)FacetingAtmospheric sciencesMechanicsThermodynamicsMaterials scienceGeomorphologyGeometryGeophysicsComposite materialMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Layers of faceted crystals adjacent to crusts form the failure layers for some unexpected dry-slab avalanches. This paper focuses on the case of facets that form when dry snow overlies wet snow. From a basic equation for heat flow in solids, the approximate freezing time of the wet layer is derived. Seven experiments are described in which a wet layer was placed between two dry-snowlayers in a cold laboratory. Measured freezing times are comparable to the freezing times from the approximate solution assuming that latent heat from the irreducible water content flowed up. In four of the experiments, evidence of faceting was observed at the base of the upper dry snow layer within 5 hours and before the wet layer froze. In all seven experiments faceting was observed in the upper dry layer after the wet layer froze. Simulations performed with the snow-cover model SNOWPACK yield freezing times that agree reasonably with the approximate solution and allow the influence of various parameters on the results to be explored. In addition, simulated temperatures and grain evolution are compared with observations, showing good agreement.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations15
Published2004
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of GlaciologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207