MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4392577432 · doi:10.5194/egusphere-egu24-12273

Exploring the Impact of Various Streamflow Products on Ice-Jam Formation 

2024· preprint· en· W4392577432 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohammad Ghoreishi, Shervan Gharari, Mohamed Elshamy, Karl‐Erich Lindenschmidt

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicLandslides and related hazards
Canadian institutionsGlobal Institute for Water Security
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStreamflowIce creamEnvironmental scienceChemistryGeographyFood scienceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ice jams present a significant flood risk in communities located along northern rivers, especially during the breakup of ice cover, resulting in increased backwater levels and flooding beyond riverbanks. The accurate simulation of ice formation relies on precise streamflow data, a vital input for hydraulic models. This study aims to evaluate how different streamflow products influence ice formation, focusing on simulating ice-jam flooding of the Athabasca River at Fort McMurray, Canada, with the broader goal of assessing the suitability of global datasets for predicting such events at a local scale. In our investigation, we integrate MizuRoute, a river network routing tool, and RIVICE, a one-dimensional, hydrodynamic, and river-ice hydraulic model. By employing various large-scale runoff from different models and datasets, such as MESH, ERA5, and VIC among others, our goal is to comprehensively understand how each product impacts the formation of ice jams and the subsequent flooding events. The incorporation of these runoff products is particularly relevant to investigate utilizing global datasets for predicting ice-jam flooding at a local scale.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score0.088

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.215 · 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicLandslides and related hazards→French-language works237,207→