Modelling the Athabasca watershed snow response to a changing climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Athabasca River basin (ARB) with its head-waters located within the Canadian Rockies. Investigating the snow response of the Athabasca watershed to projected climate using the Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) hydrologic model and statistically downscaled future climate data from a selected set of CMIP5 GCMs forced with RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 emissions scenarios. High resolution end-of-century projections of SWE over the Athabasca watershed show an overall decreasing trend in the mean monthly SWE over the watershed, with the largest decreases occurring in March and April, especially in the high-elevation sub-basin. There are also widespread decreases in annual maximum SWE (SWEmax), with the middle-basin showing slight increases under the RCP4.5 scenario. The dates of SWEmax are generally getting earlier, with RCP4.5 showing a less linear response than RCP8.5. Increases in early spring snowmelt are followed by decreases during the late spring and summer months mainly as a result of earlier start of snowmelt. An overall decrease in snow-cover duration of up to fifty days is projected with the largest decrease occurring in the high elevation sub-basin. Such projected declines in snow water storage and a shift to earlier peak SWE and snowmelt over the ARB have significant implications for the magnitude and timing of the watershed soil-moisture content and hydrologic regime of the Athabasca River.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".