MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Reply on RC2

2024· peer-review· en· W4403517708 on OpenAlexaff
Vincent Vionnet

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepeer-review
Languageen
FieldNursing
TopicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Light-absorbing particles (LAPs) deposited at the snow surface significantly reduce its albedo and strongly affect the snow melt dynamics. The explicit simulation of these effects with advanced snow radiative transfer models is generally associated with a large computational cost. Consequently, many albedo schemes used in snowpack models still rely on empirical parameterizations that do not account for the spatial variability of LAP deposition. In this study, a new strategy of intermediate complexity that includes the effects of spatially variable LAP deposition on snow albedo is tested with the snowpack model Crocus. It relies on an optimization of the parameter that controls the evolution of snow albedo in the visible range. Optimized values for multi-year snow albedo simulations with Crocus were generated at ten reference experimental sites spanning a large variety of climates across the world. A regression was then established between these optimal values and climatological deposition of LAP on snow at the location of the experimental sites extracted from a global climatology developed in this study. This regression was finally combined with the global climatology to obtain an LAP-informed and spatially variable parameter for the Crocus albedo parameterization. The revised parameter improved snow albedo simulations on average by 10 % with the largest improvements found in the Arctic (more than 25 %). This methodology can be applied to other land surface models using the global climatology of LAP deposition on snow developed for this study.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.327

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0030.002
Research integrity0.0260.024
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0980.092

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.327 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClinical Nutrition and Gastroenterology→French-language works237,207→