MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406682658 · doi:10.1017/jog.2025.3

Bridging the gaps: Unraveling the impact of snow properties on brine wicking and runoff

2025· article· en· W4406682658 on OpenAlexaff
Anton Komarov, Clément Soriot, Robbie Mallett, Rosemary Willatt, John Yackel, Matthew Sturm, Julienne Strœve

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Glaciology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKEuropean Space Agency
KeywordsGeologySurface runoffBrineSnowBridging (networking)Hydrology (agriculture)GeomorphologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Brine migration from sea ice into the overlying snowpack is relatively understudied yet can significantly modify thermodynamic and electromagnetic properties of the snow. In this study, we investigate the impact of snow properties on brine wicking and runoff by producing samples of four distinctly different snow types (soft wind slab, hard wind slab, faceted grains and melt-freeze clusters) and monitor changes in snow properties after adding brine. The results illustrate that snow grain type and density have a pronounced effect on the height of brine wicking and runoff, snow compaction rates and salt concentrations. In all samples, we observed separation of the initial brine-saturated slush layer into two sublayers with distinctly different properties: solid saline snow-ice at the bottom and less saline brine-wetted snow above it. The maximum height of brine wicking ranged from 6.5 cm in faceted snow to 8.9 cm in hard wind slab samples, which was equivalent of 40 to 50% of total samples’ height. The volume and timing of brine runoff varied between samples, occurring later and in smaller volumes in hard wind slab compared to soft wind slab and coarse-grained samples.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.069
Threshold uncertainty score0.156

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.236 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of GlaciologySame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207