MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2114284161 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2009.2019730

Automated Determination of Snow Water Equivalent by Acoustic Reflectometry

2009· article· en· W2114284161 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicholas Kinar, John W. Pomeroy

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersUniversity of Edinburgh
KeywordsSnowpackSnowReflectometryGravimetric analysisAcousticsSignal processingRemote sensingGeologySIGNAL (programming language)Reflection (computer programming)Computer sciencePhysicsTelecommunicationsTime domain

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snow water equivalent (SWE) is commonly determined using gravimetric and depth measurement techniques. Previous research has demonstrated the ability to determine SWE from the propagation and reflection of acoustic waves. Despite the advantages of the acoustic technique, it has not been adapted so that SWE can be determined in an automated fashion. This paper presents a new technique for determining SWE by the application of acoustics. A maximum-length sequence was used as the input to the layered snowpack system. Signal processing of the reflected wave and a recursive algorithm was used to model the sound pressure wave as it passed through the snowpack. Embedded systems were designed to implement the signal processing and calculations so that SWE could be quickly determined at a field location. The systems were deployed at sites near Whitehorse, YT, and at sites in the Rocky Mountains of Alberta, Canada. Comparisons were made between SWE estimated by the acoustic technique and SWE determined by gravimetric sampling. These comparisons demonstrated that the acoustic SWE measurement performed with the embedded systems and the new signal processing technique can provide SWE estimates that are of comparable accuracy to SWE calculated from gravimetric samples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.235 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations29
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207