MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2172838630 · doi:10.1175/jam2491.1

Climate Change Scenarios for New Zealand Rainfall

2007· article· en· W2172838630 on OpenAlexfundno aff
J. Sansom, James Renwick

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMcGill University
KeywordsDownscalingClimatologyClimate changeEnvironmental scienceGeneral Circulation ModelClimate modelGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In terms of the effects of future climate change upon society, some of the most important parameters to estimate are associated with changing risks of extreme rainfall events, both floods and droughts. However, such aspects of the climate system are hard to estimate well using general circulation models (GCMs)—in particular, for a small mountainous landmass such as New Zealand. This paper describes a downscaling technique using broad-scale changes simulated by GCMs to select past analogs of future climate. The analog samples are assumed to represent an unbiased sample of future rainfall and are used to develop detailed descriptions of rainfall statistics using hidden semi-Markov models of rainfall breakpoint information. Such models are used to simulate long synthetic rainfall time series for comparison with the historical record. Results for three New Zealand sites show overall increases in rainfall with climate change, brought about largely by an increased frequency of rainfall events rather than an increase in rainfall intensity. There was little evidence for significant increases in high-intensity short-duration rainfalls at any site. Such results suggest that, although regional increases of rainfall are consistent with expected future climate changes, it may be that circulation changes, rather than temperature (and vapor pressure) changes, will be the more important determinant of future rainfall distributions, at least for the coming few decades.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.371
Threshold uncertainty score0.544

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations26
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Meteorology and ClimatologySame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207