Modelling snowpack surface temperature in the Canadian Prairies using simplified heat flow models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Three practical schemes for computing the snow surface temperature T s , i.e. the force–restore method (FRM), the surface conductance method (SCM), and the Kondo and Yamazaki method (KYM), were assessed with respect to T s retrieved from cloud‐free, NOAA‐AVHRR satellite data for three land‐cover types of the Paddle River basin of central Alberta. In terms of R 2 , the mean T s , the t ‐test and F ‐test, the FRM generally simulated more accurate T s than the SCM and KYM. The bias in simulated T s is usually within several degrees Celsius of the NOAA‐AVHRR T s for both the calibration and validation periods, but larger errors are encountered occasionally, especially when T s is substantially above 0 °C. Results show that the simulated T s of the FRM is more consistent than that of the SCM, which in turn was more consistent than that of the KYM. This is partly because the FRM considers two aspects of heat conduction into snow, a stationary‐mean diurnal (sinusoidal) temperature variation at the surface coupled to a near steady‐state ground heat flux, whereas the SCM assumes a near steady‐state, simple heat conduction, and other simplifying assumptions, and the KYM does not balance the snowpack heat fluxes by assuming the snowpack having a vertical temperature profile that is linear. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".