MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2562266940 · doi:10.1080/02626667.2016.1261144

River temperature forecasting: case study for Little Southwest Miramichi River (New Brunswick, Canada)

2016· article· en· W2562266940 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Sciences Journal · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMean squared errorEnvironmental scienceMode (computer interface)Air temperatureAutoregressive modelStatisticsMeteorologyHydrology (agriculture)MathematicsGeographyComputer scienceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

River temperature models play an increasingly important role in the management of fisheries and aquatic resources. Among river temperature models, forecasting models remain relatively unused compared to water temperature simulation models. However, water temperature forecasting is extremely important for in-season management of fisheries, especially when short-term forecasts (a few days) are required. In this study, forecast and simulation models were applied to the Little Southwest Miramichi River (New Brunswick, Canada), where water temperatures can regularly exceed 25–29°C during summer, necessitating associated fisheries closures. Second- and third-order autoregressive models (AR2, AR3) were calibrated and validated using air temperature as the exogenous variable to predict minimum, mean and maximum daily water temperatures. These models were then used to predict river temperatures in forecast mode (1-, 2- and 3-day forecasts using real-time data) and in simulation mode (using only air temperature as input). The results showed that the models performed better when used to forecast rather than simulate water temperatures. The AR3 model slightly outperformed the AR2 in the forecasting mode, with root mean square errors (RMSE) generally between 0.87°C and 1.58°C. However, in the simulation mode, the AR2 slightly outperformed the AR3 model (1.25°C < RMSE < 1.90°C). One-day forecast models performed the best (RMSE ~ 1°C) and model performance decreased as time lag increased (RMSE close to 1.5°C after 3 days). The study showed that marked improvement in the modelling can be accomplished using forecasting models compared to water temperature simulations, especially for short-term forecasts.EDITOR M.C. Acreman ASSOCIATE EDITOR S. Huang

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 categoriesScience and technology studies, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.210 · 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