MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3169618324 · doi:10.2166/wcc.2021.038

Response of runoff in the upper reaches of the Minjiang River to climate change

2021· article· en· W3169618324 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Kebi Yang, Ting Chen, Tianqi Ao, Xu Zhang, Li Zhou, Danyang Gao

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Climate Change · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersCollege of Engineering, University of Canterbury
KeywordsSurface runoffEnvironmental sciencePrecipitationDownscalingClimate changeEvapotranspirationSWAT modelLandformHydrology (agriculture)MeltwaterSnowmeltSnowSoil and Water Assessment ToolClimatologyStreamflowGlacierPhysical geographyDrainage basinGeologyGeographyMeteorologyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Climate change affects the water cycle in different regions. The response of annual runoff and seasonal distribution to climate change in the upper reaches of the Minjiang River during 2021–2050 was studied by coupling the Statistical Downscaling Model (SDSM) and the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). This model was driven by the second-generation Canadian Earth System Model (CanESM2) under RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 scenarios. The results show that the runoff in the upper reaches of the Minjiang River has a unique response to climate change. The maximum and minimum temperatures will increase with the increase in emissions, especially in December–January. The daily precipitation shows an upward trend, especially in July–August in the RCP4.5 scenario. The annual runoff shows an upward trend with the increase in emissions. Compared with the current increase of 13–26%, the most prominent period is November–April. Because the study area covers high mountains and gorge landforms, the altitude difference is great, and the influence of evapotranspiration and snow melting processes is more prominent, causing the monthly runoff to decrease in June–July with an increase in precipitation. From April to May, precipitation decreased while runoff increased.

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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.141
Threshold uncertainty score0.169

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.214 · 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

Citations13
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water and Climate ChangeSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207