Snow cover extent during spring snowmelt in the south-central interior of British Columbia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The H60 contour elevation (i.e., elevation above which 60% of the watershed lies) is commonly used in hydrologic impact assessments of snowmelt-dominated watersheds in the interior of British Columbia. The H60 concept assumes that the upper 60% of a mountainous watershed is snow-covered and is contributing meltwater during the time of peak flow; thus, peak streamflow is assumed to be more sensitive to forest harvesting above the H60 contour elevation. However, the concept has not been well-verified by field data. This study tested the H60 concept for the Mission Creek watershed in the Okanagan region of British Columbia. Snowlines were mapped during spring freshet (snowmelt runoff) for 5 years (1999–2003). These data were analyzed with corresponding runoff data to determine, for each year, the snowline that best represents the lower extent of snow cover upon commencement of the peak flow period. It was found that, on average, 38% of the Mission Creek watershed was snow-covered at the start of the peak flow period, which represents an average contour elevation of 1520 m; the H60 elevation is 1300 m. These results suggest that the H60 concept overestimates the extent of snow cover during the spring peak flow period and, therefore does not reasonably represent the snow-sensitive zone of the Mission Creek watershed. This may be important in the assessment of potential forest harvesting impacts in the watershed.
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) | 0.000 | 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 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".