MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4282586623 · doi:10.3390/w14121841

Quantifying the Trends and Drivers of Ice Thickness in Lakes and Rivers across North America

2022· article· en· W4282586623 on OpenAlexafffund
Mohammad Arshad Imrit, Zahra Yousaf, Sapna Sharma

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationPhysical geographyCryosphereClimate changeClimatologyAtmospheric sciencesSea iceOceanographyGeographyGeologyMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monitoring the timing of ice-on and ice-off has been instrumental in estimating the long-term effects of climate change on freshwater lakes and rivers. However, ice thickness has been studied less intensively, both spatially and temporally. Here, we quantified the trends and drivers of ice thickness from 27 lakes and rivers across North America. We found that ice thickness declined on average by 1.2 cm per decade, although ice thickness declined significantly in only four waterbodies. Local winter air temperature, cloud cover, and winter precipitation were the most important determinants of ice thickness, explaining over 81% of the variation in ice thickness. Ice thickness was lower in years and regions with higher air temperatures, high percentage of cloud cover, and high winter precipitation. Our results suggest that warming is contributing to thinning ice, particularly at high latitudes, with potential ramifications to the safety of humans and wildlife populations using freshwater ice for travel and recreation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
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 score0.129

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations12
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207