MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398768475 · doi:10.3390/w16111503

Development and Application of the Snow, Soil Water and Water Balance Model (SNOSWAB), an Online Model for Daily Estimation of Snowpack Processes, Soil Water Content and Soil Water Balance

2024· article· en· W4398768475 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Serban Danielescu

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
FundersAgriculture and Agri-Food Canada
KeywordsSnowpackWater balanceSnowEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Balance (ability)Leaching modelWater contentSoil waterSoil scienceSoil fertilityGeologyGeotechnical engineeringMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

SNOSWAB (Snow, Soil Water and Water Balance) is a unique online deterministic model built using tipping-bucket approaches that allows for the daily estimation of (i) snowpack processes; (ii) soil water content; and (iii) soil water budget. SNOSWAB is most suitable for modeling field-scale processes for vertically and horizontally homogeneous soils, and its applicability is not limited to specific climate zones or geographical areas. The model is freely available, and its streamlined online interface integrates powerful calibration, visualization and data export routines. In this study, SNOSWAB development and a conceptual model, as well as an example of its application using data collected during a 12-year (2008–2019) field study conducted at the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada Harrington Experimental Farm (HEF) on Prince Edward Island (PEI), Canada, are presented. Input data consisting of daily air temperature, total precipitation, rainfall and evapotranspiration were used in conjunction with soil properties and daily soil water content, snowpack thickness, surface runoff and groundwater recharge to calibrate (2010–2014) and validate (2015–2019) the model. For both the calibration and validation simulations, the statistical indicators used for evaluating model performance indicated, in most cases, high model fitness (i.e., R2 > 0.5, NRMSE < 50% and −25% < PBIAS < 25%) for the various time intervals and parameters analyzed. SNOSWAB fills an existing gap in the online environment and, due to its ease of use, robustness and flexibility, shows promise to be adopted as an alternative for more complex, standalone models that might require extensive resources and expertise.

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)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.255
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations4
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207