MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4225403807 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-2022-237

Using snow depth observation to provide insight into the quality of regional-scale snowpack simulations for avalanche forecasting

2022· preprint· en· W4225403807 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Simon Horton, Pascal Haegeli

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsCanadian Avalanche AssociationSimon Fraser University
FundersMitacs
KeywordsSnowpackSnowEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyRange (aeronautics)ClimatologyScale (ratio)Context (archaeology)PrecipitationGeologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. The combination of numerical weather prediction and snowpack models has potential to provide valuable information about snow avalanche conditions in remote areas. However, the output of snowpack models is sensitive to precipitation inputs, which can be difficult to verify in mountainous regions. To examine how existing observation networks can help interpret the accuracy of snowpack models, we compared snow depths predicted by a weather-snowpack model chain with data from automated weather stations and manual observations. Data from the 2020–21 winter were compiled for 21 avalanche forecast regions across western Canada covering a range of climates and observation networks. To perform regional-scale comparisons, snowpack model simulations were run at select grid points from the HRDPS numerical weather prediction model to represent conditions at treeline elevations and observed snow depths were interpolated to the same locations. Snow depths in the Coast Mountain range were systematically overpredicted, while snow depths in many parts of the interior Rocky Mountain range were underpredicted. The impact of these biases had a greater impact on the simulated avalanche conditions in the interior ranges, where faceting was more sensitive to snow depth. To put the comparisons in context, the quality of the observations were assessed with uncertainties in the interpolations and by checking whether snow depth increases during stormy periods were consistent with the forecast avalanche hazard. While some regions had high quality observations, many regions had large uncertainties, suggesting in some situations the modelled snow depths could be more reliable than the observations. The analysis provides insights into the potential for validating weather and snowpack models with readily available observations, and for how avalanche forecasters can better interpret the accuracy of snowpack simulations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.129
Threshold uncertainty score0.256

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.280
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.070 · 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

Citations1
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→