Recent trends in Canadian lake ice cover
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Recent studies have shown that ice duration in lakes and rivers over the Northern Hemisphere has decreased over the 19th and 20th centuries in response to global warming. However, lake ice trends have not been well documented in Canada. Because of its size, considerable variability may exist in both freeze‐up and break‐up dates across the country. In this paper, results of the analysis of recent trends (1951–2000) in freeze‐up and break‐up dates across Canada are presented. Trends toward earlier break‐up dates are observed for most lakes during the time periods of analysis which encompass the 1990s. Freeze‐up dates, on the other hand, show few significant trends and a low degree of temporal coherence when compared with break‐up dates. These results are compared with trends in autumn and spring 0 °C isotherm dates over the time period 1966–95. Similar spatial and temporal patterns are observed, with generally significant trends toward earlier springs/break‐up dates over most of western Canada and little change in isotherm and freeze‐up dates over the majority of the country in autumn. Strong correlations (r > 0·5) between 0 °C isotherm dates and freeze‐up/break‐up dates at many locations across the country reveal the high synchrony of these variables. These results are also consistent with more recent observations of other cryospheric and atmospheric variables that indicate, in particular, a general trend toward earlier springs in the latter part of the 20th century. The results of this study provide further evidence of the robustness of lake ice as a proxy indicator of climate variability and change. Copyright © 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".