MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4252737438 · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-13218

Snow Accumulation in the Niaqunguk (Apex) River Watershed near Iqualuit, Nunavut, Canada

2018· dissertation· en· W4252737438 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Keegan Smith

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typedissertation
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowWatershedSnowmeltEnvironmental scienceTerrainArcticReplicateSpring (device)Hydrology (agriculture)Spatial distributionPrecipitationPhysical geographyGeographyRemote sensingMeteorologyGeologyCartographyComputer scienceStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spring snowmelt is the largest input to Arctic hydrological systems. The spring snow distribution is extremely spatially variable and difficult to quantify. This study used field measurements and models to characterize and quantify the spring snow distribution in the 52 km2 Niaqunguk River watershed near Iqaluit, Nunavut. Three models were assessed for their ability to replicate spatial patterns and estimate total watershed snow storage. Two semi-distributed terrain-based models were calibrated, and a fully distributed process model, SnowModel, was run. All 3 successfully replicated spatial patterns and provided reasonable quantitative estimates, except for SnowModel's poor performance in 2015. SnowModel is useful for studying mid-winter processes, but requires user technical capacity and high-quality meteorological observations lacking for much of the Arctic. By comparison, the semi-distributed models provide an accurate estimate without high technical or meteorological data demands, and provide a framework to guide stratified snow surveying.

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)0.001
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 score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.149

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.222 · 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

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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