Bayesian model averaging of the RegCM temperature projections: a Canadian case study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The choices of physical schemes coupled in the Regional Climate Model version 4 (RegCM4), the input general circulation model (GCM) results, and the emission scenarios may cause considerable uncertainties in future temperature projections. Therefore, the ensemble approach, which can be used to reflect these uncertainties, is highly desired. In this study, the probabilistic projections for future temperature are generated at 88 Canadian climate stations based on the developed RegCM4 ensemble and obtained Bayesian model averaging (BMA) weights. The BMA weights indicate that the RegCM4 coupled with the holtslag PBL scheme driven by the HadGEM can provide relatively reliable temperature projections at most climate stations. It is also suggested that the BMA approach is effective in simulating temperature over middle and eastern Canada through taking advantage of each ensemble member. However, the effectiveness of the BMA method is limited when all the models in the ensemble cannot simulate the temperature robustly. The projected results demonstrate that the temperature will increase continuously in the future, while the temperature increase under RCP8.5 will be significantly larger than that under RCP4.5.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".