On the importance of the reference data: Uncertainty partitioning of bias-adjusted climate simulations over eastern Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bias-adjusted climate simulations are increasingly disseminated through online platforms to support adaptation actions. However, there is no consensus on an operational framework to choose what to include in these “decision-ready” ensembles and for communicating the related uncertainty. In this paper, we use a systematic approach to assess the uncertainty related to bias-adjusted climate simulations across five dimensions: internal variability, greenhouse gases scenario, global climate model, observational reference and bias-adjustment method. We calculate the fraction of uncertainty associated with each dimension for precipitation-based, temperature-based and multivariate indicators over eastern Canada and focus particularly on three locations: Montréal, Gaspé and Kawawachikamach. The results show that the uncertainty associated with the reference dataset can be very large and in some instances can become the first or second largest source of uncertainty. Using simple examples, we show that the resulting differences could lead to different conclusions with respect to some adaptation solutions or possibly create confusion with users. These results raise questions on the robustness of climate projections distributed through these web platforms and the ethical responsibility of data providers to adequately evaluate and communicate the underlying uncertainty. • The uncertainty of bias-adjusted climate simulations is divided between 5 dimensions. • Observational reference is often an important share of the uncertainty. • The choice of reference can lead to different decisions in climate change adaptation.
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 | 0.007 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".