MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2592435691 · doi:10.1017/jog.2017.6

Spectral measurements of surface hoar crystals

2017· article· en· W2592435691 on OpenAlexafffund
Simon Horton, Bruce Jamieson

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaParks CanadaUniversité de Sherbrooke
KeywordsSnowGeologyWavelengthReflectivitySlabSpectrometerSurface (topology)OpticsRemote sensingMaterials scienceGeomorphologyGeophysicsGeometryPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Surface hoar crystals are common on the surface of mountain snow covers. Once buried, layers of large plate-shaped surface hoar crystals are prone to releasing dangerous snow-slab avalanches. Since snow microstructure influences the optical properties of snow, remote sensors could potentially detect the formation of surface hoar and other snow types associated with avalanche release. The spectral reflectance of 377 snow samples was measured with a field spectrometer between 750 and 2500 nm, including 161 samples of surface hoar. Morphological snow shapes associated with critical avalanche layers (surface hoar, near-surface faceted particles and depth hoar) had lower average reflectance factors than non-critical snow shapes at infrared wavelengths. Needle-shaped surface hoar was more reflective than plate-shaped surface hoar, but there were no significant differences between different sizes of surface hoar. Normalized difference indices calculated with reflectance from two wavelength bands is presented as a potential method to classify critical snow surfaces remotely, although melt-freeze crusts near the surface complicated the classification. Accordingly, further studying on the effect of melt-freeze crusts and quantification of the bidirectional reflective properties of critical snow types is needed.

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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.831

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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations15
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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