Effectiveness of using representative subsets of global climate models in future crop yield projections
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Representative subsets of global climate models (GCMs) are often used in climate change impact studies to account for uncertainty in ensemble climate projections. However, the effectiveness of such subsets has seldom been assessed for the estimations of either the mean or the spread of the full ensembles. We assessed two different approaches that were employed to select 5 GCMs from a 20-member ensemble of GCMs from the CMIP5 ensemble for projecting canola and spring wheat yields across Canada under RCP 4.5 and 8.5 emission scenarios in the periods 2040-2069 and 2070-2099, based on crop simulation models. Averages and spreads of the simulated crop yields using the 5-GCM subsets selected by T&P and KKZ approaches were compared with the full 20-GCM ensemble. Our results showed that the 5-GCM subsets selected by the two approaches could produce full-ensemble means with a relative absolute error of 2.9-4.7% for canola and 1.5-2.2% for spring wheat, and covers 61.8-91.1% and 66.1-80.8% of the full-ensemble spread for canola and spring wheat, respectively. Our results also demonstrated that both approaches were very likely to outperform a subset of randomly selected 5 GCMs in terms of a smaller error and a larger range.
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 | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".