MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1658614109 · doi:10.1029/2006wr005639

Multivariate<i>L</i>‐moment homogeneity test

2007· article· en· W1658614109 on OpenAlexafffund
Fateh Chebana, Taha B. M. J. Ouarda

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsHydro-QuébecInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada Research Chairs
KeywordsMultivariate statisticsGumbel distributionHomogeneity (statistics)Copula (linguistics)Bivariate analysisStatisticsMathematicsEconometricsMultivariate analysisFlood mythLogistic regressionMarginal distributionStatistical hypothesis testingUnivariateRandom variableExtreme value theoryGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several types of hydrological events are described with multivariate characteristics (droughts, floods, rain storms, etc.). When carrying out a multivariate regional frequency analysis for these events it is important to jointly consider all these characteristics. The aim of this paper is to extend the statistical homogeneity test of Hosking and Wallis (1993) to the multivariate case. As a tool, multivariate L ‐moments are used to define the statistics and general copula models to describe the statistical behavior of dependent variables. The usefulness of the methodology is illustrated on flood events. Monte‐Carlo simulations are also performed for a bivariate Gumbel logistic model with Gumbel marginal distributions. Results illustrate the power of the proposed multivariate L ‐moment homogeneity test to detect heterogeneity on the whole structure of the model and on the marginal distributions. In a bivariate flood setting, a comparison is carried out with the classical homogeneity test of Hosking and Wallis based on several types of regions.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.665
Threshold uncertainty score0.993

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.009

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.290 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

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

Citations97
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207