Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Accurate estimation of snow water equivalent (SWE) over high mountainous regions is essential to support water resource management. Due to the sparse distribution of in situ observations, models have been used to estimate SWE. However, the influence of horizontal resolution on the accuracy of simulations remains poorly understood. This study evaluates the potential of the Weather Research and Forecasting (WRF) model at horizontal resolutions of 9, 3 and 1 km to estimate the daily values of SWE over the mountainous South Saskatchewan River Basin (SSRB) in Western Canada, for a representative water year, 2017–18. Results show an accumulation period from October 2017 to the annual peak in April 2018, followed by a melting period to the end of water year. All WRF simulations tend to underestimate annual SWE, with largest biases (up to 58 kg/m2, i.e. relatively 24 %) at higher elevations and coarser horizontal resolution. The two higher-resolution simulations capture the magnitude (and timing) of peak SWE very accurately, with only a 3 to 6 % low bias for 1 km and 3 km simulations, respectively. This demonstrates that a 3 km resolution may be appropriate for estimating SWE accumulation across the region. A relationship is identified between model elevation bias and SWE biases, suggesting that the smoothing of topographic features at lower horizontal resolution leads to lower grid cell elevations, warmer temperatures, and lower SWE. Overall, high resolution WRF simulations can provide reliable SWE values as an accurate input for hydrologic modeling over a sparsely monitored mountainous catchment.
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 | 0.021 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.191 | 0.139 |
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".