MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3188155848 · doi:10.1029/2021ef002215

Ensemble Drought Exposure Projection for Multifactorial Interactive Effects of Climate Change and Population Dynamics: Application to the Pearl River Basin

2021· article· en· W3188155848 on OpenAlexaff
Ruixin Duan, Guohe Huang, Xiong Zhou, Yongping Li, Chuyin Tian

Bibliographic record

VenueEarth s Future · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceClimate changePopulationPrecipitationRepresentative Concentration PathwaysClimatologyEvapotranspirationDrainage basinClimate modelPhysical geographyHydrology (agriculture)GeographyGeologyMeteorologyEcologyDemographyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract With a changing climate, drought has become a common natural disaster. In our study, population exposure to drought over the Pearl River Basin (PRB) under climate change is investigated. Drought frequency is evaluated through the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI). The data needed for SPEI calculation are obtained based on the ensemble of multiple global climate model (GCM) outputs. Population exposure to drought for the future is assessed by combining drought frequency under two emission scenarios (RCP4.5 and RCP8.5) with three downscaled population scenarios (SSP1, SSP2, and SSP3). Moreover, the main contribution (and their interactions) of GCM, RCP, and SSP to the sources of uncertainty on population exposure projections is explored through multilevel factorial analysis. Results indicate that the temperature and precipitation would continually increase for the future, and the increase in drought frequency is more substantial during the 2080s than in the 2050s. Meanwhile, population exposure to drought accounts for 21.60% of the total population in 1976–2005 over the PRB area. During the 2050s, it would decrease to 11.98–12.28% under RCP4.5 and 14.15–14.40% under RCP8.5, respectively. By the 2080s, population exposure would slightly reduce under RCP4.5 and increase to 28.86–29.44% under RCP8.5. GCM is the primary uncertainty source of drought exposure in the 2050s, with contribution rates of 72.41%, 57.47%, 51.10%, and 78.71% to the four responses. In comparison, by the 2080s, RCP is the primary contributing factor, with contribution rates of 53.91%, 44.92%, 64.20%, and 48.00%, respectively.

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)0.000
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 score0.558
Threshold uncertainty score0.283

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.219 · 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

Citations35
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEarth s FutureSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207