MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2040836241 · doi:10.1139/cjce-2014-0276

Numerical model study on ice impact on Lake Superior outflow limit

2015· article· en· W2040836241 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Ian Knack, Hung Tao Shen, Fengbin Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsOutflowBreakupEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Limit (mathematics)Flow (mathematics)Flooding (psychology)GeologyAtmospheric sciencesMechanicsGeotechnical engineeringMathematicsOceanographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Improved regulation of the wintertime flow from Lake Superior is needed to improve the balance of water levels of Lake Superior and Lake Michigan–Huron to decrease the frequency of extreme levels without unduly affecting Lake Superior interest. The wintertime outflow limit is set as 2410 m3/s by Lake Superior Regulation Plan 1977-A as a result of ice jam flooding during the 1916–1917 winter. This paper presents a numerical model study on the ice conditions in the St. Marys River to assess the maximum allowable Lake Superior wintertime outflow. Freeze-up, frazil transport and accumulation, and breakup were simulated with a thermal-ice dynamic model. The highest potential for flooding exists during ice breakup and simulations were run to determine a safe discharge limit for the breakup period. Simulations indicated the winter flow limit may be increased to 2690 m3/s if flow regulation is managed with care to prevent premature ice cover breakup.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.925
Threshold uncertainty score0.150

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.190 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering→Same topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics→French-language works237,207→