Sensitivity of seasonal precipitation extremes to model configuration of the Canadian Regional Climate Model over eastern Canada using historical simulations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study analyzes the uncertainty of seasonal (winter and summer) precipitation extremes as simulated by a recent version of the Canadian Regional Climate Model (CRCM) using 16 simulations (1961–1990), considering four sources of uncertainty from: (a) the domain size, (b) the driving Atmosphere–Ocean Global Climate Models (AOGCM), (c) the ensemble member for a given AOGCM and (d) the internal variability of the CRCM. These 16 simulations are driven by 2 AOGCMs (i.e. CGCM3, members 4 and 5, and ECHAM5, members 1 and 2), and one set of re-analysis products (i.e. ERA40), using two domain sizes (AMNO, covering all North America and QC, a smaller domain centred over the Province of Québec). In addition to the mean seasonal precipitation, three seasonal indices are used to characterize different types of variability and extremes of precipitation: the number of wet days, the maximum number of consecutive dry days, and the 95th percentile of daily precipitation. Results show that largest source of uncertainty in summer comes from the AOGCM selection and the choice of domain size, followed by the choice of the member for a given AOGCM. In winter, the choice of the member becomes more important than the choice of the domain size. Simulated variance sensitivity is greater in winter than in summer, highlighting the importance of the large-scale circulation from the boundary conditions. The study confirms a higher uncertainty in the simulated heavy rainfall than the one in the mean precipitation, with some regions along the Great Lakes—St-Lawrence Valley exhibiting a systematic higher uncertainty value.
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".