MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2945464349 · doi:10.1002/joc.6166

A quality control approach to better characterize the spatial distribution of snow depth over New Brunswick, Canada

2019· article· en· W2945464349 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alice Baronetti, Simona Fratianni, Fiorella Acquaotta, Guillaume Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Climatology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowEnvironmental scienceClimatologyPrecipitationPhysical geographyMeteorologySeries (stratigraphy)PercentileGeographyGeologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The aim of this work is to develop, from a high‐resolution climate analysis, a quality control standard methodology applied to manual snow cover (HS) series managed by the Snow Survey Database in New Brunswick (Canada). The database collected snow depth data biweekly starting at the end of January until the end of April. A 30‐year (1981–2010) analysis of 60 weather stations belonging to two independent meteorological networks was performed. A quality control of the climatic series was performed to evaluate the homogeneity. Three snow depth climatic areas were defined by means of two geostatistical methods (Kriging and Cluster analyses) applied on monthly snow depth, precipitation and temperature data series. Then, for each cluster, the climatological thresholds that characterize a snow fall event during the cold months were detected. Subsequently, a quality control on the daily snow depth series recorded during the January to April period was performed. For each daily series, outlier values were identified by checking both the sudden day‐to‐day changes and extreme thresholds (95th percentile). The quality control was then carried out to the manual series and the observed doubtful events were compared with the snow depth values recorded in the nearby stations. The results show that for the daily snow depth series, the highest number of suspect events was recorded during the months of March and April, and the analysis also shows that there are rain‐on‐snow events. As for the manual records, questionable snow depth errors randomly distributed in the series were highlighted. Finally, in order to improve the spatial distribution of stations located in the Canadian territory, the results give evidence that, thanks to the high‐resolution climatic analysis, the proposed approach provides all the benchmarks required to conduct a quality control of snow depth series in absence of other auxiliary variables.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.135

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.249
Teacher spread0.230 · 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 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

Citations8
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of ClimatologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207