MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2097069896

Spatial predictions of surface hoar and crust formation

2013· article· en· W2097069896 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Simon Horton, Michael Schirmer, Bruce Jamieson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowpackShortwave radiationSnowCrustGeologyLatent heatClimatologyMeteorologyAutomatic weather stationEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesRadiationGeophysicsGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT: Understanding the distribution of critical snowpack layers is important when assessing avalanche hazard. Two common critical layers, surface hoar and melt-freeze crusts, form under specif-ic weather conditions. This study explores the possibility of modelling the formation of these layers with forecasted weather data. Surface hoar and sun crusts were tracked at study sites on two moun-tains in the Columbia Mountains of Canada. Weather data from automated stations near these sites were compared to forecast data from two numeric weather prediction (NWP) models (15 and 2.5 km grids). The latent heat flux and net shortwave radiation were modelled with the snow cover model SNOWPACK and related to observed surface hoar crystal size and sun crust thickness. Surface hoar formation was then predicted across western Canada with NWP data. Comparing these predictions with observations made by avalanche professionals at 112 study plots found that surface hoar occur-rence was generally over-predicted. Spatial predictions with forecast data could help avalanche fore-casting in data sparse areas.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.272
Threshold uncertainty score0.541

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.184
Teacher spread0.170 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→