Factorial Sensitivity Analysis of Physical Schemes and Their Interactions in RegCM
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract It is well known that the choices of physical schemes in Regional Climate Models (RCMs) can cause considerable uncertainties in future climate projections. In this study, a factorial sensitivity analysis method has been proposed to screen out statistically significant schemes and interactions, which assists in selecting the optimized physical scheme combination from a long‐term perspective with affordable computational costs. The Regional Climate Model (RegCM) is used as an example to illustrate how the approach works. In detail, all schemes are fully tested through 120 experimental runs based on a factorial design; the contributions and statistical significance (P value) of individual schemes and their interactions to temperature, precipitation, wind speed, and wind direction are then quantified. The performance of the proposed approach is then demonstrated through a case study of Canada. The results indicate that there exist considerable spatial and temporal simulated variations associated with different scheme combinations. It is also suggested that individual physical schemes have dominant influences on simulated variations, but some effects explained by their interactions are statistically significant and thus cannot be neglected. In particular, the planetary boundary layer (PBL) scheme, moisture scheme, and land surface model are found to be the dominant factors affecting the uncertainties of temperature, precipitation, and wind speed in future climate projections over Canada, respectively. Furthermore, the potential relationships between the vegetation cover conditions and the sensitivity of physical schemes are explored. The proposed approach is an attempt to analyze the sensitivity influenced by not only individual physical schemes and also their multilevel interactions.
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 | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".