MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2071591206 · doi:10.1139/l06-021

River ice breakup processes: recent advances and future directions

2007· article· en· W2071591206 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Spyros Beltaos

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreakupEnvironmental scienceClimate changeHydropowerFlood mythGeologyOceanographyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The breakup of the winter ice cover is a brief but seminal event in the regime of northern rivers, and in the life cycle of river and basin ecosystems. Breakup ice jams can cause extreme flood events, with major impacts on riverside communities, aquatic life, infrastructure, navigation, and hydropower generation. Related concerns are underscored by the issue of climate change and the faster warming that is predicted for northern parts of the globe. Advances in knowledge of breakup processes and related topics, achieved over the past 15 years or so, are outlined. They pertain to breakup initiation and ice-jam formation, ice-jam properties and numerical modelling of ice jams, waves generated by ice-jam releases, forecasting and mitigation methods, sediment transport, ecological aspects, and climate-change impacts. Major knowledge gaps are associated with the dynamic interaction of moving ice with the flow and with the stationary ice cover. Increasing computing capacity and remote sensing sophistication are expected to provide effective means for bridging these gaps. Key words: climate, ecology, forecasting, ice jam, modelling, onset, sediment, wave.

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)0.004
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.995
Threshold uncertainty score0.019

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.006
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.171
Teacher spread0.167 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations45
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207