MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4417214367 · doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.134781

Modelling river ice processes in a small-steep-regulated river

2025· article· en· W4417214367 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Mark Loewen, Yuntong She

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersCrown-Indigenous Relations and Northern Affairs CanadaChina Scholarship CouncilUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsHydrology (agriculture)MeltwaterHydrological modellingShelf icePermafrostStreamflowCryosphere

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

River ice processes in small-steep-regulated rivers are distinct from those in larger and low-gradient rivers due to fast flow, shallow depths, highly variable and often unstable flow conditions. Existing river ice models are not well suited for these rivers because they rely on assumptions that misrepresent their characteristics and do not account for key ice processes, such as aufeis evolution. In this study, the University of Alberta’s River1D model was revised to improve its ability to simulate ice processes in small-steep-regulated rivers. Several key enhancements were implemented, including removal of the floating border ice assumption, a border ice retreat algorithm, an aufeis formation algorithm, a quasi-2D border ice profile algorithm, and refinement of anchor ice thermal release algorithm. The revised model was calibrated and validated on the Aishihik River, a regulated river in the Yukon, Canada, using comprehensive field data collected over two winter seasons. Water temperature and water level simulations achieved RMSEs of 0.11 °C and 0.20–0.25 m, respectively. Modelled border ice growth and retreat patterns aligned with field observations. Floodplain aufeis processes were reasonably captured, with differences between simulated and observed thicknesses ranging from 0.01 to 0.23 m, and the simulated extent in good agreement with field measurements. The enhanced River1D model offers a valuable tool for assessing the impacts of flow regulation, mitigating ice-related hazards, and evaluating climate change scenarios in small-steep-regulated rivers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.210
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydrologySame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207