Using a Statistical Preanalysis Approach as an Ensemble Technique for the Unbiased Mapping of GCM Changes to Local Stations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Accounting for climate change, GCM-based projections and their uncertainty are relevant to study potential impacts on hydrological regimes as well as to analyze, operate, and design water infrastructure. Traditionally, several downscaled and/or bias-corrected GCM projections are individually or jointly used to map the raw GCMs’ changes to local stations and evaluate uncertainty. However, the preservation of GCMs’ statistical attributes is by no means guaranteed, and thus alternative methods to cope with this issue are needed. This work develops an ensemble technique for the unbiased mapping of GCM changes to local stations, which preserves local climate variability and the GCMs’ statistics. In the approach, trend percentiles are extracted from the GCMs to represent the range of future long-term climate conditions to which local climatic variability is added. The approach is compared against a method in which each GCM is individually used to build future climatic scenarios from which percentiles are computed. Both approaches were compared to study future precipitation conditions in three Chilean basins under future climate projections based on 45 GCM runs under the RCP8.5 scenario. Overall, the approaches produce very similar results, even if a few trend percentiles are adopted in the GCM preanalysis. In fact, using 5–10 percentiles produces a mean absolute difference of 0.4% in the estimation of the probabilities of consecutive years under different precipitation thresholds, which is ~60% less than the error obtained using the median trend. Thus, the approach successfully preserves the GCM’s statistical attributes while incorporating the range of projected climates.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".