MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415748400 · doi:10.1126/sciadv.adv7926

Determining the cause of inconsistent onset-season trends in the Northern Hemisphere snow cover extent record

2025· article· en· W4415748400 on OpenAlexaff
Aleksandra Elias Chereque, Paul J. Kushner, Lawrence Mudryk, Chris Derksen

Bibliographic record

VenueScience Advances · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsEnvironment and Climate Change CanadaUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorthern HemisphereSnow coverSnowWinter seasonClimate changeSnow line

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

While seasonal snow cover extent (SCE), an essential climate variable, has broadly declined as a response to global warming, notable inconsistencies remain among long-term satellite-based estimates of SCE change during the Northern Hemisphere snow onset season. SCE datasets from a reanalysis-driven simple snow model serve as benchmarks and allow us to reconcile the trends from one prominent snow cover record with other recent studies. In particular, artificial increasing snow cover trends in the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration's Snow Cover Extent Climate Data Record (CDR) during the onset season are related to changes in snow detection sensitivity. This artificial drift primarily affects September, October, and November snow cover but is detectible through February. Revised trends produced by merging the last decade's CDR estimates with the offline model datasets reveal decreasing Northern Hemisphere trends in all months but January. This approach shows that offline snow models produce useful benchmarks that can expose biases in observational snow cover datasets with other cross-validation.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScience AdvancesSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207