MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W936586417

Cooling and Avalanches

2012· article· en· W936586417 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Penelope H. Goddard

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings, 2012 International Snow Science Workshop, Anchorage, Alaska · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSnowpackSnowGeologyClimatologyMeteorologyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Avalanches which occur during periods of cooling are important because they can surprise people, even very experienced practitioners. However, the influence of cooling on avalanche activity has not been well studied and is poorly understood. A survey of 40 avalanche professionals indicates that avalanches sometimes occur when the snow surface is cooling from above-freezing to below-freezing, often leading to unexpected and very large slab failures. Around 360 avalanches were reported from New Zealand, North America, Europe, Asia and Antarctica when snow surface temperatures dropped from 0° C to below 0° C. An avalanche of this type is termed a ‘Cool-Down Avalanche’ (CDA). This dataset, which spans the years 1960-2010, has been analysed to illustrate common snowpack and meteorological characteristics during CDA activity. The survey revealed that avalanches also occur during times of rapid cooling within an overall colder temperature regime, without a clear melt-freeze process at the snow surface. Case studies from western Canada during the 2010-2011 winter give examples of avalanches which occurred under such a regime. Challenges for forecasting cooling-related avalanches are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.232 · 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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings, 2012 International Snow Science Workshop, Anchorage, Alaska→Same topicCryospheric studies and observations→French-language works237,207→