Bibliographic record
Abstract
Continuous and spatially distributed data of snow mass (water equivalent of snow cover, SWE) from automatic ground-based measurements are increasingly required for climate change studies and for hydrological applications (snow hydrological-model improvement and data assimilation). We present and compare four new-generation sensors, now commercialized, that are non-invasive and based on different radiations that interact with snow for SWE monitoring: cosmic-ray neutron probe (CRNP), gamma ray monitoring (GMON) scintillator, frequency-modulated continuous-wave radar (FMCW radar) at 24âGHz and global navigation satellite system (GNSS) receivers (GNSSr). All four techniques have relatively low power requirements, provide continuous and autonomous SWE measurements, and can be easily installed in remote areas. A performance assessment of their advantages, drawbacks and uncertainties is discussed from experimental comparisons and a literature review. Relative uncertainties are estimated to range between 9â% and 15â% when compared to manual in situ snow surveys that are also discussed. Results show the following. (1)Â CRNP can be operated in two modes of functioning: beneath the snow, it is the only system able to measure very deep snowpacks ( > â2000âmmâw.e.) with reasonable uncertainty across a wide range of measurements; CRNP placed above the snow allows for SWE measurements over a large footprint ( â¼ â20âha) above a shallow snowpack. In both cases, CRNP needs ancillary atmospheric measurements for SWE retrieval. (2)Â GMON is the most mature instrument for snowpacks that are typically up to 800âmmâw.e. Both CRNP (above snow) and GMON are sensitive to surface soil moisture. (3)Â FMCWÂ radar needs auxiliary snow-depth measurements for SWE retrieval and is not recommended for automatic SWE monitoring (limited to dry snow). FMCWÂ radar is very sensitive to wet snow, making it a very useful sensor for melt detection (e.g., wet avalanche forecasts). (4)Â GNSSr allows three key snowpack parameters to be estimated simultaneously: SWE (range: 0â1000âmmâw.e.), snow depth and liquid water content, according to the retrieval algorithm that is used. Its low cost, compactness and low mass suggest a strong potential for GNSSr application in remote areas.
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 | 0.003 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.022 | 0.021 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.152 | 0.129 |
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".