Switching the pooling similarity distances: Mahalanobis for Euclidean
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, catchment similarity measures based on flood seasonality have become popular alternatives for identifying hydrologically homogeneous pooling groups used in regional flood frequency analysis. Generally, flood seasonality pooling measures are less prone to errors and are more robust than measures based on flood magnitude data. However, they are also subject to estimation uncertainty resulting from sampling variability. Because of sampling variability, catchment similarity in flood seasonality can significantly deviate from the true similarity. Therefore sampling variability should be directly incorporated in the pooling algorithm to decrease the level of pooling uncertainty. This paper develops a new pooling approach that takes into consideration the sampling variability of flood seasonality measures used as pooling variables. A nonparametric resampling technique is used to estimate the sampling variability for the target site, as well as for every site that is a potential member of the pooling group for the target site. The variability is quantified by Mahalanobis distance ellipses. The similarity between the target site and the potential site is then assessed by finding the minimum confidence interval at which their Mahalanobis ellipses intersect. The confidence intervals can be related to regional homogeneity, which allows the target degree of regional homogeneity to be set in advance. The approach is applied to a large set of catchments from Great Britain, and its performance is compared with the performance of a previously used pooling technique based on the Euclidean distance. The results demonstrate that the proposed approach outperforms the previously used approach in terms of the overall homogeneity of delineated pooling groups in the study area.
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 | 0.004 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".