Multicriteria evaluation of discharge simulation in Dynamic Global Vegetation Models
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In this study, we assessed the performance of discharge simulations by coupling the runoff from seven Dynamic Global Vegetation Models (DGVMs; LPJ, ORCHIDEE, Sheffield-DGVM, TRIFFID, LPJ-GUESS, CLM4CN, and OCN) to one river routing model for 16 large river basins. The results show that the seasonal cycle of river discharge is generally modelled well in the low and mid latitudes, but not in the high latitudes, where the peak discharge (due to snow and ice melting) is underestimated. For the annual mean discharge, the DGVMs chained with the routing model show an underestimation. Furthermore the 30-year trend of discharge is also under-estimated. For the inter-annual variability of discharge, a skill score based on overlapping of probability density functions (PDFs) suggests that most models correctly reproduce the observed variability (correlation coefficient higher than 0.5; i.e. models account for 50% of observed inter-annual variability) except for the Lena, Yenisei, Yukon, and the Congo river basins. In addition, we compared the simulated runoff from different simulations where models were forced with either fixed or varying land use. This suggests that both seasonal and annual mean runoff has been little affected by land use change, but that the trend itself of runoff is sensitive to land use change. None of the models when considered individually show significantly better performances than any other and in all basins. This suggests that based on current modelling capability, a regional-weighted average of multi-model ensemble projections might be appropriate to reduce the bias in future projection of global river discharge.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".