MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2675817671 · doi:10.3390/w9070457

Water Temperature Ensemble Forecasts: Implementation Using the CEQUEAU Model on Two Contrasted River Systems

2017· article· en· W2675817671 on OpenAlexafffund
Sébastien Ouellet‐Proulx, André St‐Hilaire, Marie‐Amélie Boucher

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à ChicoutimiInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceRange (aeronautics)Ensemble averageHydrology (agriculture)Ensemble forecastingClimatologyMeteorologyGeographyGeologyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In some hydrological systems, mitigation strategies are applied based on short-range water temperature forecasts to reduce stress caused to aquatic organisms. While various uncertainty sources are known to affect thermal modeling, their impact on water temperature forecasts remain poorly understood. The objective of this paper is to characterize uncertainty induced to water temperature forecasts by meteorological inputs in two hydrological contexts. Daily ensemble water temperature forecasts were produced using the CEQUEAU model for the Nechako (regulated) and Southwest Miramichi (natural) Rivers for 1–5-day horizons. The results demonstrate that a larger uncertainty is propagated to the thermal forecast in the unregulated river (0.92–3.14 °C) than on the regulated river (0.73–2.29 °C). Better performances were observed on the Nechako with a mean continuous ranked probability score (MCRPS) <0.85 °C for all horizons compared to the Southwest Miramichi (MCRPS ≈ 1 °C). While informing the end-user on future thermal conditions, the ensemble forecasts provide an assessment of the associated uncertainty and offer an additional tool to river managers for decision-making.

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 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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.143
Threshold uncertainty score0.892

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations27
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicFish Ecology and Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207