MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3201649972 · doi:10.1117/12.2597638

In silico assessment of light penetration into snow: implications to the prediction of slab failures leading to avalanches

2021· article· en· W3201649972 on OpenAlexaff
Petri M. Varsa, Gladimir V. G. Baranoski

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowpackSlabSnowGeologyCohesion (chemistry)Geotechnical engineeringGeophysicsGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Snow avalanches are a natural hazard that incur great cost to both property and to human welfare. In some countries they are known to cause more fatalities than both earthquakes and landslides. They also pose a threat to transportation corridors such as year-round highways and railroads that must pass through mountainous regions. There are two categories of avalanche formation that must be recognized when considering slope failure: loose and slab. The former occurs when there is little cohesion in the snowpack and a localized failure progresses downslope. This takes place when the slope angle is steeper than the angle of repose, making failure circumstances comparatively easy to predict. In contrast, slab avalanches occur when a cohesive slab of snow is released over an extended plane of weakness. This happens when a stress, such as the loading of fresh or windblown snow, or the weight of a person, is introduced to a slab layer which has formed on top of a weak layer. The formation of the weak layer that governs slab releases is much more difficult to predict, making this category of avalanche more hazardous. The plane of the weak layer may be comprised of different types of crystals (e.g., hoar and faceted). These are formed either at the surface or at a subsurface depth through morphological processes involving the transport of heat and vapour pressure gradients through the snowpack. These formations are weak since they exhibit poor intergranular bonding and lack shear strength. Even though it has been recognized as a factor in a significant fraction of failure events, the formation of near-surface faceted crystal layers has not been studied extensively. Elucidating the formation of subsurface faceted crystals will advance the current understanding about the formation of snow slabs, which in turn, could be used in the prediction of slope failure. The formation process of subsurface faceted crystals is tied to the penetration of solar radiation into the snowpack. More specifically, absorbed radiation provides the energy that gives rise to the morphological processes governing crystal growth. Consequently, the quantification of light penetration through snow is of interest for studies on the formation of the weak layers associated with snow failure. Despite its importance, investigations of light penetration through snow are still scarce in the literature, and the datasets obtained from field work are affected by experimental limitations. To overcome these limitations and to advance the understanding of light penetration into near-surface layers of snow, we employed a predictive in silico experimental setup. Our findings demonstrate that snow grain size and sample density must be carefully accounted for when estimating the quantity of solar radiation contributing to the subsurface morphological processes that form faceted crystals. In addition, our in silico experiments provide a detailed assessment of the hyperspectral transmission profiles at different depths. To the best of our knowledge, such an assessment has not been reported in the related literature to date.

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)0.001
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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