MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406239994 · doi:10.5149/arc-gr.1338

Differential Cooling of a Freshwater Body below the Temperature of Maximum Density

2025· article· en· W4406239994 on OpenAlexaffabout

Bibliographic record

VenueARC Geophysical Research · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntellectual Property Law
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We propose a simplified model for the time rate of change of average basin temperature for a freshwater lake which has two connected basins: a shallow littoral zone of depth D1, and a deeper main basin of depth D2. This system is cooled below the temperature of maximum density (Tmd) with a constant and uniform outgoing surface heat flux, Ho. The differential cooling that is established via this set-up gives rise to an exchange flow between the two basins which we approximate as a time dependent heat flux controlled by the strength of the time dependent density difference between the two basins. Our model is a coupled system of two ordinary differential equations which allows for a process based investigation into the importance of exchange on the timing of ice-onset for a lake with a shallow littoral zone. While basin geometry plays a role in the overall timing of ice-onset for the system, it is the relative strength of Ho to the exchange flow related heat flux due to the density anomaly of fresh water, ρ*, which dictates the behaviour of the cooling system. We show that at sufficiently large values of the heat flux ratio, Φ, the difference in timing of ice onset between the littoral zone and main basin becomes insensitive to the initial conditions in the lake. We use data from Base Mine Lake, Canada, to both verify our model assumptions and evaluate the predictions made by our simple model.

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)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.317 · 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 designBench or experimental
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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueARC Geophysical ResearchSame topicIntellectual Property LawFrench-language works237,207