River temperature forecasting: case study for Little Southwest Miramichi River (New Brunswick, Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".