MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137297106 · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.126208

Modeling lake outburst and downstream hazard assessment of the Lower Barun Glacial Lake, Nepal Himalaya

2021· article· en· W3137297106 on OpenAlex
Ashim Sattar, Umesh K. Haritashya, Jeffrey S. Kargel, Dan H. Shugar, Donald V. Chase

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
FundersU.S. Army Corps of EngineersU.S. Geological SurveyNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsGlacial lakeMoraineMagnitude (astronomy)Glacial periodGeologyGlacierHydrology (agriculture)Flood mythSnowmeltPhysical geographyErosionEnvironmental scienceGeomorphologySnowGeographyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change-driven retreat of glaciers is producing thousands of glacial lakes across mountain regions. These lakes generally grow, coalesce into larger lakes that may produce increased downstream hazards and risks due to glacial lake outburst floods (GLOFs). This study assesses such hazards of Lower Barun Lake located near Mount Everest, Nepal. We model a series of scenarios, including two potential avalanches that enter the lake from the surrounding slope and eight potential GLOFs from the lake. To evaluate the susceptibility of the frontal moraine to overtopping, we characterize the initial avalanche-induced surge of water over the moraine caused by the kinetic energy of arriving masses and possible tsunami-like events. Further, we present physical hydrodynamic models that reveal the hazard from the potential overtopping and GLOF events along the Barun-Arun river valley. Special attention is given to analyze the flow hydraulics at six downstream settlements. To estimate potential impacts at each location, two extreme-magnitude, two high-magnitude, two moderate-magnitude, and two low-magnitude GLOFs were hydraulically evaluated for the present lake dimension and the modeled future growth of the lake. As with most hydrological processes, the magnitude and frequency of GLOFs from Lower Barun Lake have an inverse, albeit uncertain, relationship, but the potential impacts on people and infrastructure are extremely sensitive to the events’ magnitude. The flow dynamics results indicate that an overtopping flood without erosion of the damming moraine causes minimal impact in the valley. The extreme-magnitude and high-magnitude GLOF cases, where the moraine is incised, have a larger impact but differ greatly in magnitude at each of the downstream settlements. The moderate-magnitude and low-magnitude GLOFs, while the most frequent type, have limited volume and peak discharge, causing less impact downstream. Our calculations only portray the part of the hydrograph representing lake overfill due to a volume of ice or rock entering the lake, and the volume of the lake that could drain from a breach of the damming moraine down to specified depths over specified time periods.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.065
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.222 · 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