MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2965198672 · doi:10.3390/w11081620

System Dynamics Approach for Assessing the Behaviour of the Lim Reservoir System (Serbia) under Changing Climate Conditions

2019· article· en· W2965198672 on OpenAlexafffund
Milan Stojković, Slobodan P. Simonović

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHydropowerEnvironmental scienceClimate changeClimatologyDownscalingSystem dynamicsClimate modelMeteorologyHydrology (agriculture)Computer scienceGeographyPrecipitationEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Investigating the impact of climate change on the management of a complex multipurpose water system is a critical issue. The presented study focuses on different steps of the climate change impact analysis process: (i) Use of three regional climate models (RCMs), (ii) use of four bias correction methods (BCMs), (iii) use of three concentration scenarios (CSs), (iv) use of two model averaging procedures, (v) use of the hydrological model and (vi) use of the system dynamics simulation model (SDSM). The analyses are performed for a future period, from 2006 to 2055 and the reference period, from 1971 to 2000. As a case study area, the Lim water system in Serbia (southeast Europe) is used. The Lim river system consists of four hydraulically connected reservoirs (Uvac, Kokin Brod, Radojnja, Potpec) with a primary purpose of hydropower generation. The results of the climate change impact analyses indicate change in the future hydropower generation at the annual level from −3.5% to +17.9%. The change has a seasonal variation with an increase for the winter season up to +20.3% and decrease for the summer season up to −33.6%. Furthermore, the study analyzes the uncertainty in the SDSM outputs introduced by different steps of the modelling process. The most dominant source of uncertainty in power production is the choice of BCMs (54%), followed by the selection of RCMs (41%). The least significant source of uncertainty is the choice of CSs (6%). The uncertainty in the inflows and outflows is equally dominated by the choice of BCM (49%) and RCM (45%).

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.464
Threshold uncertainty score0.462

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 studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207