Comparison of Methods to Estimate Snow Water Equivalent at the Mountain Range Scale: A Case Study of the California Sierra Nevada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Despite the importance of snow in global water and energy budgets, estimates of global mountain snow water equivalent (SWE) are not well constrained. Two approaches for estimating total range-wide SWE over Sierra Nevada, California, are assessed: 1) global/hemispherical models and remote sensing and models available for continental United States (CONUS) plus southern Canada (CONUS+) available to the scientific community and 2) regional climate model simulations via the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) Model run at 3, 9, and 27 km. As no truth dataset provides total mountain range SWE, these two approaches are compared to a “reference” SWE consisting of three published, independent datasets that utilize/validate against in situ SWE measurements. Model outputs are compared with the reference datasets for three water years: 2005 (high snow accumulation), 2009 (average), and 2014 (low). There is a distinctive difference between the reference/WRF datasets and the global/CONUS+ daily estimates of SWE, with the former suggesting up to an order of magnitude more snow. Results are qualitatively similar for peak SWE and 1 April SWE for all three years. Analysis of SWE time series indicates that lower SWE for global and CONUS+ datasets is likely due to precipitation, rain/snow partitioning, and ablation parameterization differences. It is found that WRF produces reasonable (within 50%) estimates of total mountain range SWE in the Sierra Nevada, while the global and CONUS+ datasets underestimate SWE.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".