MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4206041901 · doi:10.3354/cr01687

North American rain-on-snow ablation climatology

2022· article· en· W4206041901 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zachary J. Suriano

Bibliographic record

VenueClimate Research · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowSnowpackSnowmeltClimatologyPrecipitationEnvironmental scienceSnow fieldAtmospheric sciencesGeographyPhysical geographyMeteorologyGeologySnow cover

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rain-on-snow ablation events carry a relatively high risk for rapid snowmelt and runoff due to the combination of liquid precipitation and generally high turbulent fluxes into the snowpack. Determining the variability in rain-on-snow ablation is critical in describing local hydroclimate. This study uses a gridded observational snow dataset to examine spatiotemporal variations in North American rain-on-snow ablation over a 50 yr period. Here we show rain-on-snow ablation represents approximately 33% of all ablation events in the eastern third of the continent, compared to <20% in its interior. Rain-on-snow ablation was most frequent along the western and eastern coasts of the continent, with >10 events observed per year on average. A central band of enhanced event frequencies propagated meridionally during the calendar year, most prominently in the eastern half of the continent. Seasonal (September to August) event frequency from 1960-2009 significantly decreased by approximately 50% across much of northern Quebec and in the southern Appalachians, while it significantly increased in portions of British Columbia and southeastern Quebec. Interannual variations in event frequency were primarily forced by variations in seasonal-scale snowfall and snow depth, and only moderately associated with variations in air temperatures.

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 score0.703
Threshold uncertainty score0.597

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.249 · 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

Citations13
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClimate ResearchSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207