MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411044717 · doi:10.1038/s43247-025-02379-x

Thin and ephemeral snow shapes melt and runoff dynamics in the Peruvian Andes

2025· article· en· W4411044717 on OpenAlexaff
Catriona Fyffe, Emily Potter, Evan Miles, Thomas E. Shaw, Michael McCarthy, Andrew Orr, Edwin Loarte, Katy Medina, Simone Fatichi, Robert Hellström, Michel Baraër, Emilio Mateo, Alejo Cochachín, Matthew Westoby, Francesca Pellicciotti

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Earth & Environment · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsÉcole de Technologie SupérieureUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersConsejo Nacional de Ciencia, Tecnología e Innovación TecnológicaSchweizerischer Nationalfonds zur Förderung der Wissenschaftlichen ForschungNatural Environment Research CouncilEuropean Commission
KeywordsEphemeral keySnowpackSnowSurface runoffGlacierHydrology (agriculture)Drainage basinWater cycleSnowmeltEnvironmental scienceCryospherePhysical geographyGeologyClimatologyGeomorphologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The snow and glaciers of the Peruvian Andes provide vital water supplies in a region facing water scarcity and substantial glacier change. However, there remains a lack of understanding of snow processes and quantification of the contribution of melt to runoff. Here we apply a distributed glacio-hydrological model over the Rio Santa basin to disentangle the role of the cryosphere in the Andean water cycle. Only at the highest elevations (>5000 m a.s.l.) is the snow cover continuous; at lower elevations, the snowpack is thin and ephemeral, with rapid cycles of snowfall and melt. Due to the large catchment area affected by ephemeral snow, its contribution to catchment inputs is substantial (23% and 38% in the wet and dry season, respectively). Ice melt is crucial in the mid-dry season (up to 44% of inputs). Our results improve estimates of water fluxes and call for further process-based modelling across the Andes.

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 score0.098
Threshold uncertainty score0.959

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.203 · 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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications Earth & EnvironmentSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207