MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4239484944 · doi:10.5194/tcd-7-5971-2013

The growth of sublimation crystals and surface hoar on the Antarctic plateau

2013· preprint· en· W4239484944 on OpenAlexaff
Jean‐Charles Gallet, Florent Dominé, Joël Savarino, Marie Dumont, E. Brun

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversité LavalMakivik Corporation
FundersNorges ForskningsrådInstitut Polaire Français Paul Emile Victor
KeywordsSublimation (psychology)SnowIce crystalsAtmospheric sciencesNoonEnvironmental scienceGeologyMeteorologyPhysicsGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. On the Antarctic plateau, the budget of water vapor and energy is in part determined by precipitation, but these are so low that the dynamic of snow crystal growth and sublimation at the surface can be important factors. At Dome C (75° S, 123° E), we have frequently observed the growth of crystals on the snow surface under calm sunny weather. Here, we present the time variations of specific surface area and density of these crystals. Using the detailed snow model Crocus, we conclude that these crystals were very likely due to the nighttime formation of surface hoar crystals and to the daytime formation of sublimation crystals. These latter crystals form by processes similar to those involved in the formation of frost flowers on young sea ice. The formation of these crystals impact the albedo, mass and energy budget of the Antarctic plateau. In particular, the specific surface area variations of the surface layer can induce an instantaneous forcing of up to −10 W m−2 at noon, resulting in a surface temperature drop of 0.45 K.

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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.212
Teacher spread0.183 · 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

Citations4
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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