MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2526396701 · doi:10.2166/nh.2004.0021

Historical trends in river-ice break-up: a review

2004· review· en· W2526396701 on OpenAlexaff
Terry D. Prowse, Barrie Bonsal

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology research · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNorthern HemisphereClimatologyCircumpolar starClimate changeContext (archaeology)Environmental scienceSpring (device)Period (music)Physical geographyGeologyGeographyOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Over most northern regions, break-up is primarily a spring event. Historical evidence, however, has shown that the timing of river-ice break-up has been shifting in many areas of the Northern Hemisphere and these shifts were associated with observed air temperatures during the break-up period. This paper reviews past trends in break-up from the Eurasian and North American circumpolar regions and synthesizes them into a regional and temporal context. It also evaluates various hydro-climatic explanations for these trends including associations with winter/spring air temperature variations and relationships to large-scale circulation patterns. Even more dramatic changes to break-up timing and magnitude are forecast to occur as the result of climate change. Insights toward future break-up conditions are discussed for two broad-scale regions: the North, a region forecast to experience the most pronounced warming, and the southern limit of the cold regions, a zone of particular cryospheric sensitivity to warming.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.002

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 head0.113
GPT teacher head0.384
Teacher spread0.271 · 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

Citations41
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology researchSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207