Climate, Land, Energy and Water systems interactions – From key concepts to model implementation with OSeMOSYS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Climate, Land, Energy and Water systems (CLEWs) approach guides the development of integrated assessments. The approach includes an analytical component that can be performed using simple accounting methods, soft-linking tools, incorporating cross-systems considerations in sectoral models, or using one modelling tool to represent CLEW systems. This paper describes how a CLEWs quantitative analysis can be performed using one single modelling tool, the Open Source Energy Modelling System (OSeMOSYS). Although OSeMOSYS was primarily developed for energy systems analysis, the tool’s functionality and flexibility allow for its application to CLEWs. A step-by-step explanation of how climate, land, energy, and water systems can be represented with OSeMOSYS, complemented with the interpretation of sets, parameters, and variables in the OSeMOSYS code, is provided. A hypothetical case serves as the basis for developing a modelling exercise that exemplifies the building of a CLEWs model in OSeMOSYS. System-centred scenario analysis is performed with the integrated model example to illustrate its application. The analysis of results shows how integrated insights can be derived from the quantitative exercise in the form of conflicts, trade-offs, opportunities, and synergies. In addition to the modelling exercise, using the OSeMOSYS-CLEWs example in teaching, training and open science is explored to support knowledge transfer and advancement in the field.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.002 |
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".