Investigating snowpack across scale in the northern Great Lakes–St. Lawrence forest region of Central Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigates scaling issues by evaluating snow processes and quantifying bias in snowpack properties across scale in a northern Great Lakes–St. Lawrence forest. Snow depth and density were measured along transects stratified by land cover over the 2015/2016 and 2016/2017 winters. Daily snow depth was measured using a time‐lapse (TL) camera at each transect. Semivariogram analysis of the transect data was conducted, and no autocorrelation was found, indicating little spatial structure along the transects. Pairwise differences in snow depth and snow water equivalent (SWE) between land covers were calculated and compared across scales. Differences in snowpack between forested sites at the TL points corresponded to differences in canopy cover, but this relationship was not evident at the transect scale, indicating a difference in observed process across scale. TL and transect estimates had substantial bias, but consistency in error was observed, which indicates that scaling coefficients may be derived to improve point scale estimates. TL and transect measurements were upscaled to estimate grid scale means. Upscaled estimates were compared and found to be consistent, indicating that appropriately stratified point scale measurements can be used to approximate a grid scale mean when transect data are not available. These findings are important in remote regions such as the study area, where frequent transect data may be difficult to obtain. TL, transect, and upscaled means were compared with modelled depth and SWE. Model comparisons with TL and transect data indicated that bias was dependent on land cover, measurement scale, and seasonality. Modelled means compared well with upscaled estimates, but model SWE was underestimated during spring melt. These findings highlight the importance of understanding the spatial representativeness of in situ measurements and the processes those measurements represent when validating gridded snow products or assimilating data into models.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".