MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2245545052 · doi:10.2166/nh.2000.0018

Simulation of Snowmelt in a Subarctic Spruce Woodland: Scale Considerations

2000· article· en· W2245545052 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Ming‐ko Woo, Mark A. Giesbrecht

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology research · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSnowmeltSubarctic climateSnowEnvironmental scienceWoodlandSpatial variabilityMeltwaterSkewnessPhysical geographyScale (ratio)Albedo (alchemy)Atmospheric sciencesHydrology (agriculture)GeologyGeographyMeteorologyEcologyMathematicsStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Subarctic woodlands comprise stands of spruce trees with varying degrees of openness, giving rise to large contrasts in melt rates within the forest. The spatial variability of the changing snow depth during a melt season was investigated at three scales (2,4 and 16 m), using an example from a site in Yukon, Canada, where the computation of snowmelt takes into account the differential rates within the woodland. During the melt period, the mean daily snow depth decreases but the variability increases as continued ablation leads to greater unevenness of the snow cover. At the three scales of representation, increasing the grid size results in a reduction in the standard deviation and the skewness of depth distribution. The blurring of snow cover pattern at the larger scales is due to a loss in information, considered as the absolute value of the difference in snow depth calculated at two scales for the same location. This loss increases as the snow depth becomes more variable during the melt season. Knowledge of the scale-induced information loss is relevant to the modelling of snowmelt that exhibits large spatial variations.

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 score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.254

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 studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations14
Published2000
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology researchSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207