MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909187201 · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-17-0241.1

Quantifying Snow Mass Mission Concept Trade-Offs Using an Observing System Simulation Experiment

2019· article· en· W2909187201 on OpenAlexaffabout
Camille Garnaud, Stéphane Bélair, Marco L. Carrera, Chris Derksen, Bernard Bilodeau, Maria Abrahamowicz, Nathalie Gauthier, Vincent Vionnet

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrometeorology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowEnvironmental scienceData assimilationSnowmeltMeteorologyContext (archaeology)ClimatologyRadarPrecipitationAtmospheric sciencesComputer scienceGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Because of its location, Canada is particularly affected by snow processes and their impact on the atmosphere and hydrosphere. Yet, snow mass observations that are ongoing, global, frequent (1–5 days), and at high enough spatial resolution (kilometer scale) for assimilation within operational prediction systems are presently not available. Recently, Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) partnered with the Canadian Space Agency (CSA) to initiate a radar-focused snow mission concept study to define spaceborne technological solutions to this observational gap. In this context, an Observing System Simulation Experiment (OSSE) was performed to determine the impact of sensor configuration, snow water equivalent (SWE) retrieval performance, and snow wet/dry state on snow analyses from the Canadian Land Data Assimilation System (CaLDAS). The synthetic experiment shows that snow analyses are strongly sensitive to revisit frequency since more frequent assimilation leads to a more constrained land surface model. The greatest reduction in spatial (temporal) bias is from a 1-day revisit frequency with a 91% (93%) improvement. Temporal standard deviation of the error (STDE) is mostly reduced by a greater retrieval accuracy with a 65% improvement, while a 1-day revisit reduces the temporal STDE by 66%. The inability to detect SWE under wet snow conditions is particularly impactful during the spring meltdown, with an increase in spatial RMSE of up to 50 mm. Wet snow does not affect the domain-wide annual maximum SWE nor the timing of end-of-season snowmelt timing in this case, indicating that radar measurements, although uncertain during melting events, are very useful in adding skill to snow analyses.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.874

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 head0.081
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 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

Citations56
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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