Modelling snowpack bulk density using snow depth, cumulative degree‐days, and climatological predictor variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Snowpack water equivalent (SWE) is a key variable for water resource management in snow‐dominated catchments. While it is not feasible to quantify SWE at the catchment scale using either field surveys or remotely sensed data, technologies such as airborne LiDAR (light detection and ranging) support the mapping of snow depth at scales relevant to operational water management. To convert snow depth to water equivalent, models have been developed to predict SWE or snowpack density based on snow depth and additional predictor variables. This study builds upon previous models that relate snowpack density to snow depth by including additional predictor variables to account for (1) long‐term climatologies that describe the prevailing conditions influencing regional snowpack properties, and (2) the effect of intra‐ and inter‐year variability in meteorological conditions on densification through a cumulative degree‐day index derived from North American Regional Reanalysis products. A non‐linear model was fit to 114 506 snow survey measurements spanning 41 years from 1166 snow courses across western North America. Under spatial cross‐validation, the predicted densities had a root‐mean‐square error of 47.1 kg m −3 , a mean bias of −0.039 kg m −3 , and a Nash‐Sutcliffe Efficiency of 0.70. The model developed in this study had similar overall performance compared to a similar regression‐based model reported in the literature, but had reduced seasonal biases. When applied to predict SWE from simulated depths with random errors consistent with those obtained from LiDAR or Structure‐from‐Motion, 50% of the SWE estimates for April and May fell within −45 to 49 mm of the observed SWE, representing prediction errors of −15% to 20%.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".