MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2307476235 · doi:10.5194/tc-11-101-2017

An assessment of two automated snow water equivalent instruments during the WMO Solid Precipitation Intercomparison Experiment

2017· article· en· W2307476235 on OpenAlexaffabout
Craig D. Smith, Anna Kontu, Richard Laffin, John W. Pomeroy

Bibliographic record

Venue˜The œcryosphere · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanCampbell Scientific (Canada)Environment and Climate Change Canada
FundersWSL-Institut für Schnee- und Lawinenforschung SLF
KeywordsSnowpackSnowWater equivalentEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyClimatologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. During the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) Solid Precipitation Intercomparison Experiment (SPICE), automated measurements of snow water equivalent (SWE) were made at the Sodankylä (Finland), Weissfluhjoch (Switzerland) and Caribou Creek (Canada) SPICE sites during the northern hemispheric winters of 2013/14 and 2014/15. Supplementary intercomparison measurements were made at Fortress Mountain (Kananaskis, Canada) during the 2013/14 winter. The objectives of this analysis are to compare automated SWE measurements with a reference, comment on their performance and, where possible, to make recommendations on how to best use the instruments and interpret their measurements. Sodankylä, Caribou Creek and Fortress Mountain hosted a Campbell Scientific CS725 passive gamma radiation SWE sensor. Sodankylä and Weissfluhjoch hosted a Sommer Messtechnik SSG1000 snow scale. The CS725 operating principle is based on measuring the attenuation of soil emitted gamma radiation by the snowpack and relating the attenuation to SWE. The SSG1000 measures the mass of the overlying snowpack directly by using a weighing platform and load cell. Manual SWE measurements were obtained at the intercomparison sites on a bi-weekly basis over the accumulation–ablation periods using bulk density samplers. These manual measurements are considered to be the reference for the intercomparison. Results from Sodankylä and Caribou Creek showed that the CS725 generally overestimates SWE as compared to manual measurements by roughly 30–35 % with correlations (r2) as high as 0.99 for Sodankylä and 0.90 for Caribou Creek. The RMSE varied from 30 to 43 mm water equivalent (mm w.e.) and from 18 to 25 mm w.e. at Sodankylä and Caribou Creek, which had respective SWE maximums of approximately 200 and 120 mm w.e. The correlation at Fortress Mountain was 0.94 (RMSE of 48 mm w.e. with a maximum SWE of approximately 650 mm w.e.) with no systematic overestimation. The SSG1000 snow scale, having a different measurement principle, agreed quite closely with the manual measurements at Sodankylä and Weissfluhjoch throughout the periods when data were available (r2 as high as 0.99 and RMSE from 8 to 24 mm w.e. at Sodankylä and from 56 to 59 mm w.e. at Weissfluhjoch, where maximum SWE was approximately 850 mm w.e.). When the SSG1000 was compared to the CS725 at Sodankylä, the agreement was linear until the start of ablation when the positive bias in the CS725 increases substantially relative to the SSG1000. Since both Caribou Creek and Sodankylä have sandy soil, water from the snowpack readily infiltrates into the soil during melt, even if the soil is frozen. However, the CS725 does not differentiate this water from the unmelted snow. This issue can be identified, at least during the late spring ablation period, with soil moisture and temperature observations like those measured at Caribou Creek. With a less permeable soil and surface runoff, the increase in the instrument bias during ablation is not as significant, as shown by the Fortress Mountain intercomparison.

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.094
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.306 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations85
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venue˜The œcryosphereSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207