Performance of precipitation phase partitioning methods and their impact on snowpack evolution in a humid continental climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accurate estimations of the precipitation phase at the surface are critical for hydrological and snowpack modelling in cold regions. Precipitation phase partitioning methods (PPMs) vary in their ability to estimate the precipitation phase at around 0°C and can significantly impact simulations of snowpack accumulation and melt. The goal of this study is to evaluate PPMs of varying complexity using high‐quality observations of precipitation phase and to assess the impact on snowpack simulations. We used meteorological data collected in Edmundston, New Brunswick, Canada, during the 2021 Saint John River Experiment on Cold Season Storms (SAJESS). These data were combined with manual observations of snow depth. Five PPMs commonly used in hydrological models were tested against observations from a laser‐optical disdrometer and a Micro Rain Radar. Most PPMs produced similar accuracy in estimating only rainfall and snowfall. Mixed precipitation was the most difficult phase to predict. The multi‐physics model Crocus was then used to simulate snowpack evolution and to diagnose model sensitivity to snowpack accumulation processes (PPM, snowfall density, and snowpack compaction). Sixteen snowpack accumulation periods, including nine warm accumulation events (average temperatures above −2°C) were observed during the study period. When considering all accumulation events, simulated changes in snow water equivalent (SWE) were more sensitive to the type of PPM used, whereas simulated changes in snow depth were more sensitive to uncertainties in snowfall density. Choice of PPM was the main source of model sensitivity for changes in SWE and snow depth when only considering warm events. Overall, this study highlights the impact of precipitation phase estimations on snowpack accumulation at the surface during near‐0°C conditions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".