Uncertainty in Estimates of Net Seasonal Snow Accumulation on Glacier from In Situ Measurements
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurately estimating the net seasonal snow accumulation (or “winter balance”) on glaciers is central to assessing glacier health and predicting glacier runoff. However, measuring and modeling snow distribution is inherently difficult in mountainous terrain, resulting in high uncertainties in estimates of winter balance. Our work focuses on uncertainty attribution within the process of converting direct measurements of snow depth and density to estimates of winter balance. We collected more than 9000 direct measurements of snow depth across three glaciers in the St. Elias Mountains, Yukon, Canada in May 2016. Linear regression (LR) and simple kriging (SK), combined with cross correlation and Bayesian model averaging, are used to interpolate estimates of snow water equivalent (SWE) from snow depth and density measurements. Snow distribution patterns are found to differ considerably between glaciers, highlighting strong inter- and intra-basin variability. Elevation is found to be the dominant control of the spatial distribution of SWE, but the relationship varies considerably between glaciers. A simple parameterization of wind redistribution is also a small but statistically significant predictor of SWE. The SWE estimated for one study glacier has a short range parameter (90 m) and both LR and SK estimate a winter balance of ~0.6 m w.e. but are poor predictors of SWE at measurement locations. The other two glaciers have longer SWE range parameters (~450 m) and due to differences in extrapolation, SK estimates are more than 0.1 m w.e. (up to 40%) lower than LR estimates. By using a Monte Carlo method to quantify the effects of various sources of uncertainty, we find that the interpolation of estimated values of SWE is a larger source of uncertainty than the assignment of snow density or than the representation of the SWE value within a terrain model grid cell. For our study glaciers, the total winter balance uncertainty ranges from 0.03 (8%) to 0.15 (54%) m w.e. depending primarily on the interpolation method. Despite the challenges associated with accurately and precisely estimating winter balance, our results are consistent with the previously reported regional accumulation gradient.
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 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".