Laboratory Observations of Frazil Ice Accumulation during Freeze-Up Stage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A series of experiments was conducted using a laboratory flume within the University of Ottawa cold room to measure accumulation of frazil ice and ice jamming for open channel flows over various bed materials and different water depths. The water surface level was monitored using four ultrasonic devices mounted above the experimental flume, while the amount of ice accumulation was determined through image processing techniques. To implement the image processing, a deep learning semantic segmentation technique capable of identifying surface ice was employed. To calculate the volume of frazil accumulation in each experiment, the obtained surface area during the residual stage, when the water temperature stabilized slightly below the freezing point, was multiplied by the submerged ice thickness. The submerged ice thickness was calculated using a time-based polynomial function, which approximately fits the measured ice lower levels for various experiments. For rough and fully turbulent flows, no surface skim ice was observed, but frazil ice accumulated at the flume’s end. The resulting surface ice propagated upstream at a rate of 0.6 cm/min after the supercooling stage. In contrast, in tests with lower turbulence and higher water depth, a combination of frazil and border skim ice was observed, with maximum ice cover progression rates of 2 cm/min after supercooling was reached.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".