A novel approach for selecting extreme climate change scenarios for climate change impact studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One of the main challenges in climate change impact assessment studies is selecting climate change scenarios. By focusing on selecting projected extremes in a high dimensional space, one is confronted with the shrinkage of ensemble size while preserving the projection spread. This study proposes a novel integrated computational geometry algorithm to select extreme climate change scenarios in a high dimensional space. A set of 12 prominent climate extremes indices were used (as input to the algorithm) out of the 27 core indices recommended by the World Meteorological Organization's Expert Team on Climate Change Detection and Indices (ETCCDI). The ETCCDI indices were projected by Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) for the period of 2081-2100 relative to the baseline period 1986-2005. The approach enables the user to shrink the initial selected ensemble into smaller sub-ensembles while still capturing a wide range of simulated changes for selected climatological variables. The conservation of the projection spread was evaluated using a robust validation method when the spread error was calculated for each simulation run. The developed algorithm was applied to three different regions where the geographical domain was narrowed-down from sub-continental (western North America) to its regional (Alberta, Canada), and local (Athabasca River basin, Alberta, Canada) subdomains. Results revealed that selected extreme scenarios can vary from one region to another within the same geographical domain in response to the spatial variation in climatic regime.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".