MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143077373 · doi:10.5194/gmd-6-1337-2013

A one-dimensional model intercomparison study of thermal regime of a shallow, turbid midlatitude lake

2013· article· en· W2143077373 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaHelsingin YliopistoRussian Foundation for Basic ResearchCanadian Foundation for Climate and Atmospheric SciencesMinistère du Développement Économique, de l’Innovation et de l’ExportationMitacs
KeywordsEddy covarianceEnvironmental scienceStratification (seeds)Middle latitudesAtmospheric sciencesWater columnFlux (metallurgy)ClimatologyThermal stratificationBowen ratioTurbulenceSensible heatMeteorologyGeologyEcosystemGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Results of a lake model intercomparison study conducted within the framework of Lake Model Intercomparison Project are presented. The investigated lake was Großer Kossenblatter See (Germany) as a representative of shallow, (2 m mean depth) turbid midlatitude lakes. Meteorological measurements, including turbulent fluxes and water temperature, were carried out by the Lindenberg Meteorological Observatory of the German Meteorological Service (Deutscher Wetterdienst, DWD). Eight lake models of different complexity were run, forced by identical meteorological variables and model parameters unified as far as possible given different formulations of processes. All models generally captured diurnal and seasonal variability of lake surface temperature reasonably well. However, some models were incapable of realistically reproducing temperature stratification in summer. Total heat turbulent fluxes, computed by the surface flux schemes of the compared lake models, deviated on average from those measured by eddy covariance by 17–28 W m−2. There are a number of possible reasons for these deviations, and the conclusion is drawn that underestimation of real fluxes by the eddy covariance technique is the most probable reason. It is supported by the fact that the eddy covariance fluxes do not allow to close the heat balance of the water column, the residual for the whole period considered being ≈–28 W m−2. The effect of heat flux to bottom sediments can become significant for bottom temperatures. It also has profound influence on the surface temperatures in autumn due to convective mixing but not in summer when the lake stratification is stable. Thus, neglecting sediments shifts the summer–autumn temperature difference in models lacking explicit treatment of sediments considerably. As a practical recommendation based on results of the present study, we also infer that in order to realistically represent lakes in numerical weather prediction and climate models, it is advisable to use depth-resolving turbulence models (or equivalent) in favor of models with a completely mixed temperature profile.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.739

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.197 · 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