MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4292121929 · doi:10.5194/tc-2022-124-rc2

Comment on tc-2022-124

2022· peer-review· en· W4292121929 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vasana Dharmadasa, Christophe Kinnard, Michel Baraà r

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureCentrEau - Quebec Water Management Research CentreCenter for Northern StudiesUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSnowLidarVegetation (pathology)Physical geographyEnvironmental scienceVariogramSpatial distributionSpatial ecologyPrevailing windsSpatial variabilityHydrology (agriculture)Scale (ratio)SnowmeltGeologyRemote sensingGeomorphologyEcologyGeographyCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Accurate knowledge of snow depth distributions in forested regions is crucial for applications in hydrology and ecology. Understanding and assessing the effect of vegetation and topographic conditions on the snow depth variability is useful for the accurate prediction of snow depths. In this study, the spatial distribution of snow depth in two agro-forested sites and one coniferous site in eastern Canada was analyzed for topographic and vegetation effects on snow accumulation. Spatially distributed snow depths were derived by Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Light Detection and Ranging (UAV-lidar) surveys conducted in 2019 and 2020. Distinct patterns of snow accumulation and erosion in open areas (fields) versus adjacent forested areas were observed in lidar-derived snow depth maps at all sites. Omnidirectional semi-variogram analysis of snow depths showed the existence of a scale break distance less than 10 m in the forested area at all three sites, whereas open areas showed scale invariance or comparatively large scale break distances (i.e., 18 m). The effect of vegetation and topographic variables on the spatial variability of snow depths at each site was investigated with random forest models. Results show that including wind-related forest edge proximity effects improved the model accuracy by more than 50 % in agro-forested sites, whereas incorporating canopy characteristics improved the model accuracy by more than 60 % in the coniferous site. Hence the underlying topography and the wind-redistribution of snow along forest edges govern the snow depth variability at agro-forested sites, while forest structure variability dominates snow depth variability in the coniferous environment. These results highlight the importance of including and better representing these processes in process-based models for accurate estimates of snowpack dynamics. This study also demonstrates the usefulness of UAV-lidar to resolve and understand high-resolution snow depth heterogeneity in agro-forested environments and boreal forests.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.954

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0290.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.2850.244

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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.217 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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