MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399898580 · doi:10.5194/gmd-17-4911-2024

An open-source refactoring of the Canadian Small Lakes Model for estimates of evaporation from medium-sized reservoirs

2024· article· en· W4399898580 on OpenAlexafffundabout
M. Graham Clark, Sean K. Carey

Bibliographic record

VenueGeoscientific model development · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversitySt. Francis Xavier University
FundersGlobal Water FuturesSyncrude
KeywordsEvaporationEnvironmental scienceMean squared errorForcing (mathematics)MeteorologyHydrology (agriculture)Atmospheric sciencesGeologyMathematicsStatisticsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. Eddy covariance (EC) is one of the most effective ways to directly observe evaporation from a lake surface. However, the deployment of EC systems on lakes is costly and technically challenging, which engenders a need for accurate modelling of evaporation from reservoirs for effective management. This study aims to (1) refactor the Canadian Small Lakes Model (CSLM) into modern high-level programming languages in open-source repositories and (2) evaluate evaporation estimates from the CSLM using 9 years of EC observations of a pit lake in Northern Alberta. The CSLM is a 1-D physical lake model simulating a mixing layer and an arbitrary thick skin layer which interfaces with the atmosphere and includes a module for ice dynamics. It was developed to interface with the Canadian global coupled models as part of the surface classification scheme and thus utilizes widely accessible forcing data. In this study the CSLM evaporation estimates are also compared to a commonly used bulk transfer method of estimating evaporation. In general, the CSLM had smaller open-water season error (RMSE of 0.70 mm d−1) than the bulk transfer method (RMSE of 0.83 mm d−1). However, if EC data are available, further improvement can be gained by using an artificial neural network to adjust the modelled fluxes (RMSE of 0.51 mm d−1). This final step can be very useful for gap-filling missing data from lake observation networks as there has been recent attention on the limited coverage of direct open-water evaporation observations in the literature.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.304
Threshold uncertainty score0.985

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.213 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGeoscientific model developmentSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207