Producing hydrologic scenarios from raw climate model outputs using an asynchronous modelling framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Statistical post-processing of climate model outputs is a common hydroclimatic modelling practice aiming to produce climate scenarios that better fit in-situ observations and to produce reliable stream flows forcing calibrated hydrologic models. Such practice is however criticized for disrupting the physical consistency between simulated climate variables and affecting the trends in climate change signals imbedded within raw climate simulations. It also requires abundant good-quality meteorological observations, which are not available for many regions in the world. A simplified hydroclimatic modelling workflow is proposed to quantify the impact of climate change on water discharge without resorting to meteorological observations, nor for statistical post-processing of climate model outputs, nor for calibrating hydrologic models. By combining asynchronous hydroclimatic modelling, an alternative framework designed to construct hydrologic scenarios without resorting to meteorological observations, and quantile perturbation applied to streamflow observations, the proposed workflow produces sound and plausible hydrologic scenarios considering: (1) they preserve trends and physical consistency between simulated climate variables, (2) are implemented from a modelling cascades despite observation scarcity, and (3) support the participation of end-users in producing and interpreting climate change impacts on water resources. The proposed modelling workflow is implemented over four subcatchments of the Chaudière River, Canada, using 9 North American CORDEX simulations and a pool of lumped conceptual hydrologic models. Forced with raw climate model outputs, hydrologic models are calibrated over the reference period according to a calibration metric designed to function with temporally uncorrelated observed and simulated streamflow values. Perturbation factors are defined by relating each simulated streamflow quantiles over both reference and future periods. Hydrologic scenarios are finally produced by applying perturbation factors to available streamflow observations.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".