The influence of albedo parameterization for improved lake ice simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Lake ice models can be used to study the latitudinal differences of current and projected changes in ice covered lakes under a changing climate. The Canadian Lake Ice Model (CLIMo) is a one-dimensional freshwater ice cover model that simulates Arctic and sub-Arctic lake ice cover well. Modelling ice cover in temperate regions has presented challenges due to the differences in composition between northern and temperate ice. This study presents a comparison of measured and modelled ice regimes, with a focus on refining CLIMo for temperate regions. The study sites include two temperate region lakes (MacDonald Lake and Clear Lake, Central Ontario) and two High Arctic lakes (Resolute Lake and Small Lake, Nunavut) where climate and ice cover information have been recorded over three seasons. The ice cover simulations were validated with a combination of time lapse imagery, field measurements of snow depth, snow density, ice thickness and albedo data, and historical ice records from the Canadian Ice Database (for Resolute Lake). Simulations of the High Arctic ice cover show good agreement with previous studies for ice-on and ice-off dates (MAE 6 to 8 days). Unadjusted simulations for the temperate region lakes show both an underestimation in ice thickness (~ 4 to 18 cm) and ice-off timing (~ 25 to 30 days). Field measurements were used to adjust the albedo parameterization used in CLIMo, which resulted in improvements to both simulated ice thickness, within 0.1 cm to 10 cm of manual measurements, and ice-off timing, within 1 to 7 days of observations. These findings suggest regionally specific measurements of albedo can improve the accuracy of lake ice simulations. These results further our knowledge regarding of the response of temperate and High Arctic lake ice regimes to climate conditions.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".