MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070219271 · doi:10.1029/2006gl027258

Spatial variability and trends in observed snow depth over North America

2006· article· en· W2070219271 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Jamie Dyer, Thomas L. Mote

Bibliographic record

VenueGeophysical Research Letters · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationUniversity of GeorgiaU.S. Department of AgricultureNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsSnowSnow lineSpring (device)Physical geographySnow coverClimatologyGeologySpatial variabilityEnvironmental scienceGeographyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study uses a gridded dataset of daily U.S. and Canadian surface observations from 1960–2000 to study regional spatial and temporal variability and trends in snow depth across North America. Analysis shows minimal change in North American snow depth through January, with regions of decreasing snow depths beginning in late January. These regional decreases grow in intensity and extent through March and into April, implying an earlier onset of spring melt. The region showing the greatest decreases in snow depth occurs in central Canada, along a line from the Yukon Territory in northwestern Canada to the Great Lakes region. The regional decreases in spring snow depth across central Canada are likely a result of more rapid melt of shallower winter snowpacks, evident through shallower snow cover (2–10 cm) during May and October and a decrease in extent of deeper snowpacks (>40cm) through March and April.

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 score0.229
Threshold uncertainty score0.461

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations206
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeophysical Research LettersSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207