Canadian In Situ Snow Cover Trends for 1955–2017 Including an Assessment of the Impact of Automation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Snow cover trends for Canada over the 1955–2017 period for the daily snow depth–observing network of Environment and Climate Change Canada (ECCC) are presented based on an updated quality-controlled historical daily in situ snow depth dataset. The period since approximately 1995 is characterized by a rapid decline in manual observations (loss of over 800 manual observing sites between 1995 and 2017) and an increasing number of automated stations equipped with sonic snow depth sensors. In 2017 these accounted for approximately 45% of the network and more than 80% of the snow depth–observing network north of latitude 55°N. Automated stations are characterized by more frequent missing and anomalous data than manual ruler observations, particularly at Arctic sites. A comparison of closely located automated sonic and manual ruler observations showed similar numbers of days with snow cover but the sonic sensors detected significantly lower snow depths. For time series analysis of annual snow cover variables, the systematic difference between ruler and sonic snow depth can be removed using a common 2003–2016 reference period to compute snow cover anomalies. The updated trend results are broadly similar to previously published assessments showing long-term decreases in annual snow cover duration (SCD) and snow depth over most of Canada, with the largest decreases observed in spring snow cover and seasonal maximum snow depth (SDmax). Significant declines in SCD and SDmax of −1.7 (±1.1) days decade-1 and −1.8 cm (±0.8) cm decade−1 were observed in the Canada–averaged series over the 1955–2017 period. These trends mainly reflect snow cover conditions over southern Canada where the observing network is concentrated and where there are significant negative correlations between snow cover and winter air temperature. Declining numbers of stations reporting snow depth, issues with sonic sensor data quality, and systematic differences between ruler and sonic sensor measurements are major challenges for continued climate monitoring with the current ECCC snow depth–observing network.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".