MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4293510464 · doi:10.1175/jhm-d-21-0158.1

A Mixed-Level Factorial Inference Approach for Ensemble Long-Term Hydrological Projections over the Jing River Basin

2022· article· en· W4293510464 on OpenAlexafffund
Xiong Zhou, Guohe Huang, Yurui Fan, Xiuquan Wang, Yongping Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrometeorology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceStreamflowForcing (mathematics)PrecipitationDrainage basinRepresentative Concentration PathwaysClimate changeTerm (time)ClimatologyHydrological modellingFlooding (psychology)Climate modelHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Long-term hydrological projections can vary substantially depending on the combination of meteorological forcing dataset, hydrologic model (HM), emissions scenario, and natural climate variability. Identifying dominant sources of model spread in an ensemble of hydrologic projections is critically important for developing reliable hydrological projections in support of flooding risk assessment and water resources management; however, it is not well understood due to the multifactor and multiscale complexities involved in the long-term hydrological projections. Therefore, a stepwise clustered Bayesian (SCB) ensemble method will be first developed to improve the performance of long-term hydrological projections. Meanwhile, a mixed-level factorial inference (MLFI) approach is employed to estimate multiple uncertainties in hydrological projections over the Jing River basin (JRB). MLFI is able to reveal the main and interactive effects of the anthropogenic emission and model choices on the SCB ensemble projections. The results suggest that the daily maximum temperature under RCP8.5 in the 2050s and 2080s is expected to respectively increase by 3.2° and 5.2°C, which are much higher than the increases under RCP4.5. The maximum increase of the RegCM driven by CanESM2 (CARM)-projected changes in streamflow for the 2050s and 2080s under RCP4.5 is 0.30 and 0.59 × 10 3 m s −3 in November, respectively. In addition, in a multimodel GCM–RCM–HM ensemble, hydroclimate is found to be most sensitive to the choice of GCM. Moreover, it is revealed that the percentage of contribution of anthropogenic emissions to the changes in monthly precipitation is relatively smaller, but it makes a more significant contribution to the total variance of changes in potential evapotranspiration and streamflow. Significance Statement Increasing concerns have been paid to climate change due to its aggravating impacts on the hydrologic regime, leading to water-related disasters. Such impacts can be investigated through long-term hydrological projection under climate change. However, it is not well understood what factor plays a dominant role in inducing extensive uncertainties associated with the long-term hydrological projections due to plausible meteorological forcings, multiple hydrologic models, and internal variability. The stepwise cluster Bayesian ensemble method and mixed-level factorial inference approach are employed to quantify the contribution of multiple uncertainty sources. We find that the total variance of changes in monthly precipitation, potential evapotranspiration, and streamflow can be mainly explained by the model choices. The identified dominant factor accounting for projection uncertainties is critically important for developing reliable hydrological projections in support of flooding risk assessment and water resources management. It is suggested that more reliable models should be taken into consideration in order to improve the projection robustness from a perspective of the Loess Plateau.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.067
Threshold uncertainty score0.923

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of HydrometeorologySame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207