Ground surface boundary condition methods for analysis of climate-driven permafrost thaw: A comparative study and long-term projections for Nunavik, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Infrastructure in northern regions is increasingly threatened by climate change, mainly due to permafrost thaw. Prediction of permafrost stability is essential for assessing the long-term stability of such infrastructure. A key aspect of geotechnical problems subject to climate change is addressing the surface energy balance (SEB). In this study, we evaluated three methodologies for applying surface boundary conditions in long-term thermal geotechnical analyses, including SEB heat flux, n-factors, and machine learning (ML) models by using ERA5-Land climate reanalysis data until 2100. We aimed to determine the most effective approach for accurately predicting ground surface temperatures for climate-resilient design of northern infrastructure. The evaluation results indicated that the ML-based approach outperformed both the SEB heat flux and n-factors methods, demonstrating significantly lower prediction errors. The feasibility of long-term thermal analysis of geotechnical problems using ML-predicted ground surface temperatures was then demonstrated through a permafrost case study in the community of Salluit in northern Canada, for which the thickness of the active layer and talik were calculated under moderate and extreme climate scenarios by the end of the 21st century. Finally, we discussed the application and limitations of surface boundary condition methodologies, such as the limited applicability of the n-factors in long-term analysis and the sensitivity of the SEB heat flux to inputs and thermal imbalance. The findings highlight the importance of selecting suitable boundary condition methodologies in enhancing the reliability of thermal geotechnical analyses in cold regions. • Three surface boundary condition methodologies were evaluated. • Machine learning achieved lowest errors in ground surface temperature predictions. • The proposed approach integrates climate projections for multi-decadal analysis. • Case study reveals active-layer and potential talik formation under climate change. • Site data remain critical for validating permafrost thermal analysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".