MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3124373350 · doi:10.1002/hyp.14056

A detailed energy budget analysis of river supercooling and the importance of accurately quantifying net radiation to predict ice formation

2021· article· en· W3124373350 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Vincent McFarlane, Shawn P. Clark

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaManitoba Hydro
KeywordsEnergy budgetLongwaveEnvironmental scienceShortwave radiationSupercoolingLatent heatShortwaveHeat fluxAtmospheric sciencesSensible heatEnergy fluxFlux (metallurgy)ClimatologyHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyRadiationHeat transferRadiative transferGeologyMaterials scienceGeographyMechanicsThermodynamicsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract River supercooling and ice formation is a regular occurrence throughout the winter in northern countries. The resulting frazil ice production can obstruct the flow through intakes along the river, causing major problems for hydropower and water treatment facilities, among others. Therefore, river ice modellers attempt to calculate the river energy budget and predict when supercooling will occur in order to anticipate and mitigate the effects of potential intake blockages. Despite this, very few energy budget studies have taken place during freeze‐up, and none have specifically analysed individual supercooling events. To improve our understanding of the freeze‐up energy budget detailed measurements of air temperature, relative humidity, barometric pressure, wind speed and direction, short‐ and longwave radiation, and water temperature were made on the Dauphin River in Manitoba. During the river freeze‐up period of late October to early November 2019, a total of six supercooling events were recorded. Analysis of the energy budget throughout the supercooling period revealed that the most significant heat source was net shortwave radiation, reaching up to 298 W/m 2 , while the most significant heat loss was net longwave radiation, accounting for losses of up to 135 W/m 2 . Longwave radiation was also the most significant heat flux overall during the individual supercooling events, accounting for up to 84% of the total heat flux irrespective of flux direction, highlighting the importance of properly quantifying this flux during energy budget calculations. Five different sensible ( Q h ) and latent ( Q e ) heat flux calculations were also compared, using the bulk aerodynamic method as the baseline. It was found that the Priestley and Taylor method most‐closely matched the bulk aerodynamic method on a daily timescale with an average offset of 8.5 W/m 2 for Q h and 10.1 W/m 2 for Q e , while a Dalton‐type equation provided by Webb and Zhang was the most similar on a sub‐daily timescale with average offsets of 20.0 and 14.7 W/m 2 for Q h and Q e , respectively.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.484
Threshold uncertainty score0.194

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.247
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations14
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207