Sensitivity of bias correction step on generating hydrological scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Significant shifts in hydro-climatic regimes are expected in many parts of the world during the 21st century, affecting the water cycle. Vulnerability, impact, and adaptation studies often use tailored modeling chains to assess the expected effects of climate change, but the robustness of these chains is rarely investigated. This highlights the need for more rigorous evaluation of modeling chains to ensure that they are reliable for informed decision-making processes. To address this gap, we propose a framework for evaluating the sensitivity of hydrological scenario production to the bias correction step. We apply the framework to the Senegal River Basin, using three bias correction methods (linear scale, empirical quantile mapping, and nested bias correction) and three procedures (climate-correction, hydrological-correction, and climate-hydrological-correction). Our results show that the choice of modeling chain has a significant impact on future hydro-climatic trajectories. In particular, the combination of climate-and-hydrological-correction procedures may be optimal when both climate biases and hydrological model errors are significant. Moreover, using multiple bias correction methods can strengthen the ensemble of future hydro-climatic conditions. These findings have implications for vulnerability–impact–adaptation studies and underscore the importance of rigorous modeling chain design and sensitivity analysis.
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 | 0.020 | 0.076 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".