The role of meteorological forcing and snow model complexity in winter glacier mass balance estimation, Columbia River basin, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Glaciers are commonly located in mountainous terrain subject to highly variable meteorological conditions. High resolution meteorological (HRM) data simulated by atmospheric models can complement meteorological station observations in order to assess changes in glacier energy fluxes and mass balance. We examine the performance of two snow models, SnowModel and Alpine3D, forced by different meteorological data for winter mass balance simulations at four glaciers in the Canadian portion of the Columbia Basin. The Weather Research and Forecasting model (WRF) with resolution of 1 km and the North American Land Data Assimilation System with ~12 km resolution, provide HRM data for the two snow models. Evaluation is based on the ability of the snow models to simulate snow depth at both point locations (automated snow weather stations) and over the entire glacier surface (airborne LiDAR [Light Detection and Ranging] surveys) during the 2015/2016 winter accumulation. When forced with HRM data, both models can reproduce snow depth to within ±15% of observed values. Both models underestimate winter mass balance when forced by HRM data. When driven with WRF data, SnowModel underestimates winter mass balance integrated over the glacier area by 1 and 10%, whilst Alpine3D underestimates winter mass balance by 12 and 22% compared with LiDAR and stake measurements, respectively. The overall results show that SnowModel forced by WRF simulated winter mass balance the best.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".