MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417009923 · doi:10.1139/as-2025-0007

Quantifying the role of estuarine discharge in modulating landfast sea-ice regime in Hudson Bay and James Bay

2025· article· en· W4417009923 on OpenAlexafffundvenue
Kaushik Gupta, Debangshu Banerjee, Jens K. Ehn

Bibliographic record

VenueArctic Science · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsBayEstuaryShelf iceSea iceDischargeHydrology (agriculture)CryosphereIce shelf

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Arctic and subarctic estuaries are unique environments where flowing river water influences the freezing and melting of ice in complex ways. This study examined the impact of river discharge on the formation and persistence of landfast ice in Hudson Bay and James Bay, utilizing ice charts and satellite imagery. The results showed that landfast ice around eight major river mouths in Hudson Bay and James Bay formed later and melted earlier than near adjacent non-estuarine coastlines with minimal river impact. The degree to which ice forms later and melts earlier in river mouths compared to non-estuarine coastlines varied proportionately with the intensity of river discharge volume, implying discharge volume is a crucial factor in determining ice persistence. Furthermore, it was seen that from the start of the seasonal temperature transition, the break-up event at river mouths happened after 21 days on average, compared to 32 days in the case of ice at the adjacent coastlines. Ice at rivers with higher discharge volumes experienced earlier break-up and delayed freeze-up compared to other rivers. A crucial contribution of this study is highlighting that landfast ice break-up is either predominantly thermodynamic, with ice loss due to melting, or predominantly dynamic, with ice loss due to disintegration and flushing out of the ice due to dynamic forcings like river flow and wind.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.994

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 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
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArctic ScienceSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207