MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346202892 · doi:10.1017/jog.2016.53

Attenuation of wind-induced pressure perturbations in alpine snow

2016· article· en· W2346202892 on OpenAlexaff
S. A. Drake, Hendrik Huwald, M. B. Parlange, J. S. Selker, A. W. Nolin, Chad W. Higgins

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersÉcole Polytechnique Fédérale de Lausanne
KeywordsSnowpackSnowFirnSublimation (psychology)GeologyAttenuationPerturbation (astronomy)Atmospheric sciencesSurface pressureMechanicsMeteorologyGeomorphologyOpticsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Windpumping has been identified as a process that could potentially enhance sublimation of surface snow at high forcing frequency and spawn air movement deeper in firn at lower frequencies. We performed an experiment to examine the relationship between high-frequency wind and pressure measurements within the top meter of an alpine snowpack and compared experimental results with two theoretical predictions. We find that both theoretical predictions underestimate high-frequency perturbation pressure attenuation with depth in the near-surface snowpack and the discrepancy between theory and measurement increases with perturbation pressure frequency. The impact of this result for near-surface snow is that potential enhanced sublimation will occur over a shallower snow depth than these two theories predict. Correspondingly, interstitial air mixing at depth in firn will be driven by lower frequencies than these two theories predict. While direct measurement of these energy-rich lower frequencies is beyond the scope of this paper, stationary pressure measurements validate the presence of a pressure field that could drive near-surface circulation.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.880

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.242
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaciologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207