MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3153873543 · doi:10.5194/tc-2021-98

Multilayer observation and estimation of the snowpack cold content in a humid boreal coniferous forest in eastern Canada

2021· article· en· W3153873543 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Achut Parajuli, Daniel F. Nadeau, François Anctil, Marco Alves

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalCentrEau - Quebec Water Management Research Centre
FundersQuébec Ministère du Développement Durable, de l’Environnement et de la Lutte Contre les Changements Climatiques
KeywordsSnowpackSnowmeltSnowBorealEnvironmental scienceAtmospheric sciencesSnow coverLiquid water contentClimatologyTaigaMeteorologyGeographyGeologyForestry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Cold content (CC) is an internal energy state within a snowpack and is defined by the energy deficit required to attain isothermal snowmelt temperature (0 °C). For any snowpack, fulfilling the cold content deficit is a pre-requisite before the onset of the snowmelt. Cold content for a given snowpack thus plays a critical role because it affects both the timing and the rate of snowmelt. Estimating the cold content is a labour-intensive task as it requires extracting in-situ snow temperature and density. Hence, few studies have focused on characterizing this snowpack variable. This study describes the multilayer cold content of a snowpack and its variability across four sites with contrasting canopy structures within a coniferous boreal forest in southern Québec, Canada, throughout winter 2017–18. The analysis was divided into two steps. In the first step, the observed CC data from weekly snowpits for 60 % of the snow cover period were examined. During the second step, a reconstructed time series of CC was produced and analyzed to highlight the high-resolution temporal variability of CC for the full snow cover period. To accomplish this, the Canadian Land Surface Scheme (CLASS; featuring a single-layer snow model) was first implemented to obtain simulations of the average snow density at each of the four sites. Next, an empirical procedure was used to produce realistic density profiles, which, when combined with in situ continuous snow temperature measurements from an automatic profiling station, provides a time series of CC estimates at half-hour intervals for the entire winter. At the four sites, snow persisted on the ground for 218 days, with melt events occurring on 42 of those days. Based on snowpit observations, the largest mean CC (−2.62 MJ m−2) was observed at the site with the thickest snow cover. The maximum difference in mean CC between the four study sites was −0.47 MJ m−2, representing a site-to-site variability of 20 %. Before analyzing the reconstructed CC time series, a comparison with snowpit data confirmed that CLASS yielded reasonable estimates of the snow water equivalent (SWE) (R2 = 0.64 and percent bias (Pbias) = −17.1 %), bulk snow density (R2 = 0.71 and Pbias = 1.6 %), and bulk cold content (R2 = 0.90 and Pbias = −2.0 %). A snow density profile derived by utilizing an empirical formulation also provided reasonable estimates of cold content (R2 = 0.42 and Pbias = 5.17 %). Thanks to these encouraging results, the reconstructed and continuous CC series could be analyzed at the four sites, revealing the impact of rain-on-snow and cold air pooling episodes on the variation of CC. The continuous multilayer cold content time series also provided us with information about the effect of stand structure, local topography, and meteorological conditions on cold content variability. Additionally, a weak relationship between canopy structure and CC was identified.

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)0.000
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 score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→