High-resolution snow depth prediction using Random Forest algorithm with topographic parameters and an ecosystem map: a case study in the Greiner Watershed, Nunavut
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Increased surface temperatures (0.7℃ per decade) in the Arctic affects polar ecosystems by reducing the extent and duration of annual snow cover. Monitoring of these important ecosystems needs detailed information on snow cover properties (depth and density) at resolutions (< 100 m) that influence ecological habitats and permafrost thaw. As arctic snow is strongly influenced by vegetation, an ecotype map at 10 m resolution was added to a method with the Random Forest (RF) algorithm previously developed for alpine environments and applied here over an arctic landscape for the first time. The topographic parameters used in the RF algorithm were Topographic Position Index (TPI) and up-wind slope index (Sx), which were estimated from the freely available Arctic DEM at 2 m resolution. Ecotypes with taller vegetation with moister soils were found to have deeper snow because of the trapping effect. Using feature importance with RF, snow depth distributions were predicted from topographic and ecosystem parameters with a root mean square error = 8 cm (23%) (R² = 0.79) at 10 m resolution for an arctic watershed (1 500 km²) in western Nunavut, Canada.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".