MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W326429589

Daytime long-wave radiation approximation for physical hydrological modelling of snowmelt: a case study of southwestern Ontario

2001· article· en· W326429589 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Steven R. Fassnacht, K. R. Snelgrove, E. D. Soulis

Bibliographic record

VenueIAHS-AISH publication · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsShortwave radiationCloud coverSnowmeltEnvironmental scienceDaytimeMeteorologyCloud fractionShortwaveRadiationCloud computingStreamflowAtmospheric sciencesClimatologyFraction (chemistry)GeologyGeographyRadiative transferSnowPhysicsDrainage basinComputer scienceCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since incoming long-wave radiation is not routinely measured in Canada, when it is required as a meteorological parameter, such as input to a physically-based hydrological model, the data must be derived. These data have been successfully computed as a function of near surface air temperature and cloud cover. However, cloud cover data are also not routinely measured. A method is described to compute the cloud cover fraction, for use to estimate the long-wave radiation, from a comparison of measured to theoretical shortwave radiation at three sites in central southwestern Ontario. The daytime cloud cover fraction is on average slightly more than 0.50. The impact of different long-wave radiation estimates from varying cloud cover fraction assumptions is illustrated in terms of simulated streamflow resulting from snowmelt.

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)0.001
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 score0.041
Threshold uncertainty score0.083

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.252
Teacher spread0.199 · 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

Citations7
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIAHS-AISH publicationSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207