MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3006415295 · doi:10.1002/hyp.13720

Assimilating snow observations to snow interception process simulations

2020· article· en· W3006415295 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Zhibang Lv, John W. Pomeroy

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaAlberta InnovatesAlberta Agriculture and Forestry
KeywordsSnowInterceptionEnvironmental scienceWinter stormSnow removalStormAtmospheric sciencesHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyGeologyEcologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Snow interception is a crucial hydrological process in cold regions needleleaf forests, but is rarely measured directly. Indirect estimates of snow interception can be made by measuring the difference in the increase in snow accumulation between the forest floor and a nearby clearing over the course of a storm. Pairs of automatic weather stations with acoustic snow depth sensors provide an opportunity to estimate this, if snow density can be estimated reliably. Three approaches for estimating fresh snow density were investigated: weighted post‐storm density increments from the physically based Snobal model, fresh snow density estimated empirically from air temperature (Hedstrom, N. R., et al. [1998]. Hydrological Processes, 12, 1611–1625), and fresh snow density estimated empirically from air temperature and wind speed (Jordan, R. E., et al. [1999]. Journal of Geophysical Research, 104, 7785–7806). Automated snow depth observations from adjacent forest and clearing sites and estimated snow densities were used to determine snowstorm snow interception in a subalpine forest in the Canadian Rockies, Alberta, Canada. Then the estimated snow interception and measured interception information from a weighed, suspended tree and a time‐lapse camera were assimilated into a model, which was created using the Cold Regions Hydrological Modelling platform (CRHM), using Ensemble Kalman Filter or a simple rule‐based direct insertion method. Interception determined using density estimates from the Hedstrom‐Pomeroy fresh snow density equation agreed best with observations. Assimilating snow interception information from automatic snow depth measurements improved modelled snow interception timing by 7% and magnitude by 13%, compared to an open loop simulation driven by a numerical weather model; its accuracy was close to that simulated using locally observed meteorological data. Assimilation of tree‐measured snow interception improved the snow interception simulation timing and magnitude by 18 and 19%, respectively. Time‐lapse camera snow interception information assimilation improved the snow interception simulation timing by 32% and magnitude by 7%. The benefits of assimilation were greatly influenced by assimilation frequency and quality of the forcing data.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.100
Threshold uncertainty score0.199

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.102
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.177 · 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 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

Citations26
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207