Bibliographic record
Abstract
Border ice is one of many ice freeze-up processes, but it is discussed only to a limited extent in the literature. Border ice formation can be a precursor for ice jam formation that may restrict navigation and lead to flooding. This master’s thesis is mainly devoted to the research on the border ice on the Saint Lawrence River from Montréal to Québec City. This reach stays artificially open all winter because commercial ships are continuously preventing a full ice cover to form. The traffic also limits the extent of border ice.\n This study provides key information on ice formation and decay. Through analysis of Environment Canada’s historical data (ice charts from 2004 to 2009), the areal coverage of border ice is analyzed during freeze-up, winter and breakup periods. The historical information of ice coverage is collected in order to find out the factors which influence its formation and its spatial limits. Border ice growth and decay rates are also discussed. \n The thesis shows that border ice coverage has three stages including the rapid growth period at the beginning of the winter, the relatively stable period in the mid-winter and the breakup period as March progresses. During the mid-winter period, the border ice coverage sometimes drops sharply if the air temperature rises above 0 °C and/or if there is some rain. It was also found that the maximum border ice spatial limits are quite similar over the five winter seasons.\n Based on the analysis of the ice charts, a number of empirical laws regarding the formation and decay of border ice are proposed. Along the river flowing direction, the border ice is formed easily when there are obstacles particularly at the downstream end. The obstacles could include river bends, ice booms, shoals, artificial islands, bridge piers and so on. Thus, the obstacle influences the flow velocity, which is an important factor for ice formation and also provides an object against which the ice can become fast and initiate its formation.\n On average, border ice reaches 20% of its maximum coverage when the accumulated freezing degree days (AFDD) reaches 124 °C-D. This is followed by a rapid growth period that ends when the ice cover reaches about 80% of its maximum cover corresponding to AFDD equal to 247 °C-D. Border ice coverage usually reaches the maximum value when the average AFDD is 551 °C-D corresponding to the end of January.\n The winter period is characterised by a stable ice cover (>90% of max) upstream of Trois-Rivières except in the event of a mid-winter thaw. Downstream of Trois-Rivières there is no stable period as the decay begins very soon after the ice reaches its maximum value.\n Breakup is a gradual process that normally begins on about Feb. 15th downstream of Trois- Rivières and about March 1st upstream. Most ice has normally gone by March 31st. \n Moreover, the river flow velocity, river depth and Froude number along the limits of border ice once it reaches its maximal areal coverage are evaluated and analyzed. The flow velocity is almost always less than 1.0 m/s; the maximum Froude number is normally 0.1 at Lake Saint-Pierre and 0.2 in the Montréal to Sorel reach; river depth at the ice edge can vary widely.\n Through numerical modelling, it was found that border ice increased the current velocity by 0.1 m/s in the Lake Saint-Pierre reach and raised water levels by 14 cm in the Montréal to Sorel reach. \n
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".