MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2887496701 · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-17-0198.1

Using a Statistical Preanalysis Approach as an Ensemble Technique for the Unbiased Mapping of GCM Changes to Local Stations

2018· article· en· W2887496701 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Cristián Chadwick, Jorge Gironás, Sebastián Vicuña, Francisco Meza, James McPhee

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrometeorology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFondo Nacional de Desarrollo Científico y TecnológicoInternational Development Research Centre
KeywordsGCM transcription factorsPercentilePrecipitationEnvironmental scienceDownscalingClimatologyClimate changeRange (aeronautics)Climate modelGeneral Circulation ModelMeteorologyStatisticsMathematicsGeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.808
Threshold uncertainty score0.387

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations16
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydrometeorologySame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207