Vegetation and Topographic Control of Wind-Blown Snow Distributions in Distributed and Aggregated Simulations for an Arctic Tundra Basin
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A finescale model of blowing snow is used to simulate the characteristics of snow cover in a low-Arctic catchment with moderate topography and partial shrub cover. The influence of changing shrub characteristics is investigated by performing a sequence of simulations with varying shrub heights and coverage. Increasing shrub height gives an increase in snow depth within the shrub-covered areas, up to a limit determined by the supply of falling and blowing snow, but increasing shrub coverage gives a decrease in snow depths within shrubs as the supply of blowing snow imported from open areas is reduced. A simulation of snow redistribution over the existing topography without any shrub cover gives much greater accumulations of snow on slopes in the lee of the prevailing wind than on windward slopes; in contrast, shrubs are able to trap snow on both lee and windward slopes. A spatially aggregated, or tiled, model is developed in which snow is relocated by wind transport from sparsely vegetated tiles to more densely vegetated tiles. The vegetation distribution is not specified, but the simulation is parameterized using average fetch lengths along the major transport axis. The aggregated model is found to be capable of matching the average snow accumulation in shrub and open areas predicted by the distributed model reasonably well but with much less computational cost.
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 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) | 0.000 | 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 it