Parameter sensitivity analysis of a 1-D cold region lake model forland-surface schemes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. Lakes might be sentinels of climate change, but the uncertainty in their main feedback to the atmosphere – heat-exchange fluxes – is often not considered within climate models. Additionally, these fluxes are seldom measured, hindering critical evaluation of model output. Analysis of the Canadian Small Lake Model (CSLM), a one-dimensional integral lake model, was performed to assess its ability to reproduce diurnal and seasonal variations in heat fluxes and the sensitivity of simulated fluxes to changes in model parameters, i.e. turbulent transport parameters and the light extinction coefficient (Kd). A recently developed software package, Problem Solving environment for Uncertainty Analysis and Design Exploration (PSUADE), was used to perform Sensitivity Analysis (SA) and identify the parameters that dominate model behavior. The Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE) was applied to quantify the fluxes' uncertainty, comparing daily-averaged eddy covariance observations to the output of CSLM. Seven qualitative and two quantitative SA methods were tested and the posterior likelihoods of the modeled parameters, obtained from the GLUE analysis, were used to determine the dominant parameters and the uncertainty in the modeled fluxes. Despite the ubiquity of the equifinality issue – different parameter-values combinations yielding equivalent results – the answer to the question was unequivocal: Kd, a measure of how much light penetrates the lake, dominates sensible and latent heat fluxes and the uncertainty their estimates is strongly related to the accuracy with which Kd is determined. This is important since Kd is seldom measured and accurate estimates of its value could reduce modeling uncertainty.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".