MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3201575135 · doi:10.1016/j.rser.2021.111605

Value-added diagnostics for the assessment and validation of integrated assessment models

2021· article· en· W3201575135 on OpenAlexaff
T. M. L. Wigley, Sanghyun Hong, Barry W. Brook

Bibliographic record

VenueRenewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicEnvironmental Impact and Sustainability
Canadian institutionsNexen (Canada)
FundersAustralian Research CouncilMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyNational Science Foundation
KeywordsValue (mathematics)Model validationEngineeringBiochemical engineeringComputer scienceData scienceMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We evaluated three Integrated Assessment Models (IAMs: IGSM, MERGE, MiniCAM) by: (i) comparing their global Primary Energy year-2000 initializations and projections for 2010 and 2015 to historical data ; (ii) mapping their CO 2 emissions projections against observations; and (iii) examining model-output diagnostics. The IAMs underestimated historical primary energy consumption and initial/projected CO 2 emissions in both reference and stabilization scenarios (particularly for combustion fuels) but overestimated usage of non-biomass renewables, causing underestimates of future CO 2 emissions that, for the stabilization scenarios, are wildly optimistic. Mitigation technology breakdowns in the policy scenarios vary enormously across IAMs, suggesting that confidence in their projections might be misplaced, or that options for mitigation have greater scope than is supposed. Most increases in carbon-free technologies in the stabilization scenarios are already captured in the reference cases. Energy-conversion efficiencies in electricity generation improve over time, but, (except for gas-powered generation in IGSM), efficiencies in the policy scenarios are less than in the reference. Electrification results diverge widely: IGSM has little change over the 21st century, while MiniCAM and MERGE have major electrification increases in their policy scenarios. We suggest: 1) comprehensive model output suitable for secondary analysis should be more readily available; 2) directly comparable reference and policy-driven mitigation scenarios are essential for assessing mitigation measures ; 3) model validation using historical, source-specific energy data is crucial for assessing model credibility; 4) separation of mitigation contributions into no-policy and policy-driven amounts is needed to assess the effectiveness of mitigation policies; and 5) detailed inter-model comparisons can provide important insights into model credibility.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.035
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.116
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.183

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0350.116
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.005
Open science0.0030.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueRenewable and Sustainable Energy ReviewsSame topicEnvironmental Impact and SustainabilityFrench-language works237,207