An Evaluation of <i>CMIP5 GCM</i> Simulations over the Athabasca River Basin, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Long‐term hydrological forecasting, water resources management and other climate change impacts or adaptation analysis studies on large continental river basins, for example, the Athabasca River Basin ( ARB ) in Canada, desire a reliable climatic projection. This usually relies on general circulation models ( GCM s) in the fifth phase of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project ( CMIP5 ). However, there is a lack of a systematic evaluation of CMIP5 GCM performances over the ARB that vary with multiple factors, for example, statistical metrics, temporal scales and spatial locations, challenging the reliability of water‐related or other studies over the ARB . For this gap to be filled, six CMIP5 GCM s, namely, IPSL‐CM5A‐LR , IPSL‐CM5A‐MR , MIROC‐ESM‐CHEM , MIROC5 , GFDL‐ESM2G and GFDL‐ESM2M , and their ensemble mean are selected according to data availabilities of representative climate variables: Tmin , Tmax and Prec ( TTP ). Accuracies of the selected CMIP5 GCM s in reproducing TTP over the ARB are evaluated comprehensively. The ensemble mean cannot outperform any GCM in all cases in the ARB , although its overall accuracy seems to be higher in consideration of all cases. These accuracies vary with TTP , locations, metrics and scales. For instance, ESM2G shows the highest accuracies in reproducing monthly/seasonal variability and magnitudes of grid‐averaged TTP and inter‐annual variability of grid‐averaged annual means of Tmax ; CM5A‐LR in multi‐year‐averaged spatial variability of TTP and magnitudes of spatially distributed multi‐year‐averaged Tmax ; while the ensemble mean only in some aspects, for example, intraseasonal variability and magnitudes of TTP and inter‐annual variability and magnitudes of grid‐averaged annual means of TTP . GCM s should be systematically integrated according to accuracy variations. Multiple statistical metrics are recommended in GCM evaluations. These findings facilitate water resources systems analyses and other related studies in the ARB . Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".