MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1940344183 · doi:10.1002/hyp.9388

Variation analysis of precipitation during past 286 years in Beijing area, China, using non‐parametric test and wavelet analysis

2012· article· en· W1940344183 on OpenAlexaff
Miao Li, Jun Xia, Zhi Chen, Dejuan Meng, Chong‐Yu Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Processes · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsConcordia University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWaveletMathematicsStatisticsDiscrete wavelet transformParametric statisticsSeries (stratigraphy)Wavelet transformData setStandard deviationTime seriesBeijingComputer scienceGeologyGeographyArtificial intelligenceChina

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Non‐parametric methods including Mann–Kendall (M–K) test, continuous wavelet transform (CWT) and discrete wavelet transform analysis are applied in this paper to detect the trend and periodic trait of precipitation data series in Beijing area where the data set spans nearly 300 years from 1724 to 2009. First, the trend of precipitation variables is elaborated by the M–K test (Sequential M–K test). The results show that there is an increasing trend (the value of this trend is 1.98) at the 5%‐significance level and there are not turning points in the whole data series. Then, CWT and wavelet variance are used to check for significant periodic characteristics of data series. In the plots of wavelet transform coefficients and figure of wavelet variance, some periodic events affect the trend of the annual total precipitation series in Beijing area. 85‐year, 35‐year and 21‐year periodic events are found to be the main periodic series of long‐term precipitation data, and they are all statistically significant. Moreover, the results of non‐parametric M–K test are exhibited on seven different combinations of discrete wavelet components. D5 (32‐year periodicity) periodic component is the effective and significant component on data. It is coincident with the result (35‐year periodic event as one part of main periodicity) by using CWT analysis. Moreover, approximation mode shows potential trend of the whole data set because it is the residuals as all periodicities are removed from data series. Thus, the mode A + D5 is responsible for producing a real basic structure of the trend founded on the data. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.034
Threshold uncertainty score0.369

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.229 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations34
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological ProcessesSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207