Requirements for the Development and Operation of a Freeze-Up Ice-Jam Flood Forecasting System
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This article provides a comprehensive overview of ice-jam flood forecasting methodologies applicable to rivers during freezing. It emphasizes the importance of understanding river ice processes and fluvial geomorphology for developing a freeze-up ice-jam flood forecasting system. The article showcases a stochastic modelling approach, which involves simulating a deterministic river ice model multiple times with varying parameters and boundary conditions. This approach has been applied to the Exploits River at Badger in Newfoundland, Canada, a river that has experienced several freeze-up ice-jam floods. The forecasting involves two approaches: predicting the extent of the ice cover during river freezing and using an ensemble method to determine backwater flood level elevations. Other examples of current ice-jam flood forecasting systems for the Kokemäenjoki River (Pori, Finland), Saint John River (Edmundston, NB, Canada), and Churchill River (Mud Lake, NL, Canada) that are operational are also presented. The text provides a detailed explanation of the processes involved in river freeze-up and ice-jam formation, as well as the methodologies used for freeze-up ice-jam flood forecasting. Ice-jam flood forecasting systems used for freeze-up were compared to those employed for spring breakup. Spring breakup and freeze-up ice-jam flood forecasting systems differ in their driving factors and methodologies. Spring breakup, driven by snowmelt runoff, typically relies on deterministic and probabilistic approaches to predict peak flows. Freeze-up, driven by cold temperatures, focuses on the complex interactions between atmospheric conditions, river flow, and ice dynamics. Both systems require air temperature forecasts, but snowpack data are more crucial for spring breakup forecasting. To account for uncertainty, both approaches may employ ensemble forecasting techniques, generating multiple forecasts using slightly different initial conditions or model parameters. The objective of this review is to provide an overview of the current state-of-the-art in ice-jam flood forecasting systems and to identify gaps and areas for improvement in existing ice-jam flood forecasting approaches, with a focus on enhancing their accuracy, reliability, and decision-making potential. In conclusion, an effective freeze-up ice-jam flood forecasting system requires real-time data collection and analysis, historical data analysis, ice jam modeling, user interface design, alert systems, and integration with other relevant systems. This combination allows operators to better understand ice jam behavior and make informed decisions about potential risks or mitigation measures to protect people and property along rivers. The key findings of this review are as follows: (i) Ice-jam flood forecasting systems are often based on simple, empirical models that rely heavily on historical data and limited real-time monitoring information. (ii) There is a need for more sophisticated modeling techniques that can better capture the complex interactions between ice cover, water levels, and channel geometry. (iii) Combining data from multiple sources such as satellite imagery, ground-based sensors, numerical models, and machine learning algorithms can significantly improve the accuracy and reliability of ice-jam flood forecasts. (iv) Effective decision-support tools are crucial for integrating ice-jam flood forecasts into emergency response and mitigation strategies.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,004 | 0,002 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».