MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408431413 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu25-12459

Investigating the seasonal influence of atmospheric rivers on runoff generation during rain-on-snow

2025· preprint· en· W4408431413 on OpenAlexaffabout
Alexis Bédard-Therrien, François Anctil, Daniel F. Nadeau

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowSurface runoffEnvironmental scienceRain and snow mixedHydrology (agriculture)ClimatologyPhysical geographyMeteorologyAtmospheric sciencesGeographyGeologyEcologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Numerous studies in the western United States have shown that atmospheric rivers (AR) have been responsible for flood-prone rain-on-snow (ROS) conditions such as intense rainfall, rapid warming of the air, and important snowmelt. Intense AR events were also shown to affect snowpack depth on a seasonal scale. The documentation of such impacts is less extensive in other areas, such as the east coast of North America. Meanwhile, climate projections indicate that the intensity and frequency of extreme events associated with atmospheric rivers will increase for the region, leading to an elevated hydrological impact caused by AR. This study focuses on the Côte-Nord region in Quebec (Canada), which experiences important yearly snow accumulation (>300 mm) and where snowpack monitoring is crucial due to the high hydroelectricity production in the area. The impacts of AR are analyzed by combining hydrometeorological observations with automated snow water equivalent measurements at 42 sites for the 2012–2021 period, as well as atmospheric river intensity scales derived from reanalysis. The ROS events were separated between those accompanied by AR and those that were not, resulting in 149 AR and 58 non-AR events. The intensity of the events was represented by the generated water available for runoff (WAR), which combines net rainfall and snowmelt. A seasonal analysis revealed that early winter was characterized by a high frequency of AR-associated events (36), exhibiting the greatest yearly frequency of high-scale AR events. The median WAR for AR events during this period was 36 mm, with rainfall predominating. In instances of extreme precipitation, WAR was significantly amplified by snowmelt, resulting from the rapid warming of shallow snowpacks. In late winter, there was a more balanced distribution of non-AR (54) and AR (74) events, which were characterized by generally lower intensity scales. This resulted in lower median WAR of, respectively, 30 mm and 19 mm for AR and non-AR events. However, the contribution of snowmelt during these events closely resembled that of rainfall, due to the generally warmer temperatures and the presence of lower-scale AR. The seasonal behaviour of the ROS events suggests a precipitation phase sensibility for WAR generation and variability in energy balance components. The sensitivity to precipitation phase is expected to vary between early and late winter, due to their distinct WAR compositions. Similarly, the event energy balance is bound to differ between early and late winter due to the contrasting conditions provided by low- and high-scale AR. This study underscores the distinctions between early and late winter ROS events and the necessity of accounting for the effects of atmospheric rivers on snowpack dynamics. Additionally, the findings outline considerations for snowpack modelling to more accurately represent extreme weather events projected to increase in frequency in the future.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.079
Threshold uncertainty score0.157

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.227
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→