MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2753638051 · doi:10.1002/hyp.11346

A modelling framework to simulate field‐scale nitrate response and transport during snowmelt: The WINTRA model

2017· article· en· W2753638051 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Diogo Costa, Jennifer Roste, John W. Pomeroy, Helen M. Baulch, J. G. Elliott, H. S. Wheater, Cherie J. Westbrook

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaGlobal Institute for Water SecurityUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaCanadian Water NetworkAgriculture and Agri-Food CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsSnowmeltSnowpackSurface runoffMeltwaterSnowEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Biogeochemical cycleAtmospheric sciencesGeologyChemistryEnvironmental chemistryGeomorphologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Modelling nutrient transport during snowmelt in cold regions remains a major scientific challenge. A key limitation of existing nutrient models for application in cold regions is the inadequate representation of snowmelt, including hydrological and biogeochemical processes. This brief period can account for more than 80% of the total annual surface runoff in the Canadian Prairies and Northern Canada and processes such as atmospheric deposition, overwinter redistribution of snow, ion exclusion from snow crystals, frozen soils, and snow‐covered area depletion during melt influence the distribution and release of snow and soil nutrients, thus affecting the timing and magnitude of snowmelt runoff nutrient concentrations. Research in cold regions suggests that nitrate (NO3) runoff at the field‐scale can be divided into 5 phases during snowmelt. In the first phase, water and ions originating from ion‐rich snow layers travel and diffuse through the snowpack. This process causes ion concentrations in runoff to gradually increase. The second phase occurs when this snow ion meltwater front has reached the bottom of the snowpack and forms runoff to the edge‐of‐the‐field. During the third and fourth phases, the main source of NO3transitions from the snowpack to the soil. Finally, the fifth and last phase occurs when the snow has completely melted, and the thawing soil becomes the main source of NO3to the stream. In this research, a process‐based model was developed to simulate hourly export based on this 5‐phase approach. Results from an application in the Red River Basin of southern Manitoba, Canada, shows that the model can adequately capture the dynamics and rapid changes of NO3concentrations during this period at relevant temporal resolutions. This is a significant achievement to advance the current nutrient modelling paradigm in cold climates, which is generally limited to satisfactory results at monthly or annual resolutions. The approach can inform catchment‐scale nutrient models to improve simulation of this critical snowmelt period.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.110
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations34
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207