MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084741222 · doi:10.1080/07055900.2015.1026872

Uncertainty in Regional Climate Model Mean Runoff Projections under Climate Change: Case Study of Labrador's Churchill River Basin

2015· article· en· W2084741222 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Jonas Roberts, Ken Snelgrove

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMemorial University of Newfoundland
FundersU.S. Department of Energy
KeywordsSurface runoffClimatologyClimate changeEnvironmental scienceClimate modelDrainage basinPrecipitationSWAT modelWater balanceStructural basinHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An ensemble of seven climate models from the North American Regional Climate Change Assessment Program (NARCCAP) was used to examine uncertainty in simulated runoff changes from a base period (1971–2000) to a future period (2041–2070) for the Churchill River basin, Labrador, Canada. Three approximations for mean annual runoff from each ensemble member were included in the analysis: (i) atmospheric moisture convergence, (ii) the balance between precipitation and evaporation, and (iii) instantaneous runoff output from respective land-surface schemes. Using data imputation (i.e., reconstruction) and variance decomposition it was found that choice of regional climate model (RCM) made the greatest contribution to uncertainty in the climate change signal, whereas the boundary forcing of a general circulation model (GCM) played a smaller, though non-negligible, role. It was also found that choice of runoff approximation made a substantial contribution to uncertainty, falling between the contribution from RCM and GCM choice. The NARCCAP output and imputed data were used to calculate mean and median annual changes and results were presented via probability distribution functions to facilitate decision making. Mean and median increases in runoff for the basin were found to be 11.2% and 8.9%, respectively.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.990

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.044
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.225 · 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 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

Citations11
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207