Assessment of the Potential Hydrological Impacts of Climate Change in Quebec—Canada, a Refined Neutral Approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is currently much discussion as to whether probabilistic (top–down) or possibilistic (bottom–up) approaches are the most appropriate to estimate potential future climate impacts. In a context of deep uncertainty, such as future climate, bottom-up approaches aimed at assessing the sensitivity and vulnerability of systems to changes in climate variables have been gaining ground. A refined framework is proposed here (in terms of coherence, structure, uncertainty, and results analysis) that adopts the scenario–neutral method of the bottom–up approach, but also draws on some elements of the top–down approach. What better guides the task of assessing the potential hydroclimatological impacts of changing climatic conditions in terms of the sensitivity of the systems, differential analysis of climatic stressors, paths of change, and categorized response of the scenarios: past, changing, compensatory, and critical condition. The results revealed a regional behavior (of hydroclimatology, annual water balances, and snow) and a differential behavior (of low flows). We find, among others, the plausible scenario in which increases in temperature and precipitation would generate the same current mean annual flows, with a reduction of half of the snow, a decrease in low flows (significant, but differentiated between basins), and a generalized increase in dry events.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".