Quantifying the role of the snowpack in generating water available for run‐off during rain‐on‐snow events from snow pillow records
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rain‐on‐snow events have generated major floods around the world, particularly in coastal, mountainous regions. Most previous studies focused on a limited number of major rain‐on‐snow events or were based primarily on model results, largely due to a lack of long‐term records from lysimeters or other instrumentation for quantifying event water balances. In this analysis, we used records from five automated snow pillow sites in south coastal British Columbia, Canada, to reconstruct event water balances for 286 rain‐on‐snow events over a 10‐year period. For large rain‐on‐snow events (event rainfall >40 mm), snowmelt enhanced the production of water available for run‐off (WAR) by approximately 25% over rainfall alone. For smaller events, a range of antecedent and meteorological factors influenced WAR generation, particularly the antecedent liquid water content of the snowpack. Most large events were associated with atmospheric rivers. Rainfall dominated WAR generation during autumn and winter events, whereas snowmelt dominated during spring and summer events. In the majority of events, the sensible heat of rain contributed less than 10% of the total energy consumed by snowmelt. This analysis illustrated the importance of understanding the amount of rainfall occurring at high elevations during rain‐on‐snow events in mountainous regions.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".