Meteorological and evaluation datasets for snow modelling at ten reference sites: description of in situ and bias-corrected reanalysis data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. This paper describes in situ meteorological forcing and evaluation data, and bias-corrected reanalysis forcing data, for cold regions modelling at ten sites. The long-term datasets (one maritime, one arctic, three boreal and five mid-latitude alpine) are the reference sites chosen for evaluating models participating in the Earth System Model-Snow Model Intercomparison Project. Periods covered by the in situ data vary between seven and twenty years of hourly meteorological data, with evaluation data (snow depth, snow water equivalent, albedo, soil temperature and surface temperature) available at varying temporal intervals. 30-year (1980–2010) time-series have been extracted from a global gridded surface meteorology dataset (Global Soil Wetness Project Phase 3) for the grid cells containing the reference sites, interpolated to one-hour timesteps and bias corrected. Although applied to all sites, the bias corrections are particularly important for mountain sites that are hundreds of meters higher than the grid elevations; as a result, uncorrected air temperatures are too high and snowfall amounts are too low in comparison with in situ measurements. The discussion considers the importance of data sharing to the identification of errors and how the publication of these datasets contributes to good practice, consistency and reproducibility in Geosciences. Supplementary material provides information on instrumentation, an estimate of the percentages of missing values, and gap-filling methods at each site. It is hoped that these datasets will be used as benchmarks for future model development and that their ease of use and availability will help model developers quantify model uncertainties and reduce model errors. The data are published in the repository PANGAEA and available at: https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.897575.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.009 |
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".