A Finite Volume Blowing Snow Model for Use With Variable Resolution Meshes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Blowing snow is ubiquitous in cold, windswept environments. In some regions, blowing snow sublimation losses can ablate a notable fraction of the seasonal snowfall. It is advantageous to predict alpine snow regimes at the spatial scale of snowdrifts (≈1 to 100 m) because of the role of snow redistribution in governing the duration and volume of snowmelt. However, blowing snow processes are often neglected due to computational costs. Here, a three‐dimensional blowing snow model is presented that is spatially discretized using a variable resolution unstructured mesh. This represents the heterogeneity of the surface explicitly yet, for the case study reported, gained a 62% reduction in computational elements versus a fixed‐resolution mesh and resulted in a 44% reduction in total runtime. The model was evaluated for a subarctic mountain basin using transects of measured snow water equivalent (SWE) in a tundra valley. Including blowing snow processes improved the prediction of SWE by capturing inner‐annual snowdrift formation, more than halved the total mean bias error, and increased the coefficient of variation of SWE from 0.04 to 0.31 better matching the observed CV (0.41). The use of a variable resolution mesh did not dramatically degrade the model performance. Comparison with a constant resolution mesh showed a similar CV and RMSE as the variable resolution mesh. The constant resolution mesh had a smaller mean bias error. A sensitivity analysis showed that snowdrift locations and immediate up‐wind sources of blowing snow are the most sensitive areas of the landscape to wind speed variations.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".