Bootstrap simulations for evaluating the uncertainty associated with peaks‐over‐threshold estimates of extreme wind velocity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In the peaks‐over‐threshold (POT) method of extreme quantile estimation, the selection of a suitable threshold is critical to estimation accuracy. In practical applications, however, the threshold selection is not so obvious due to erratic variation of quantile estimates with minor changes in threshold. To address this issue, the article investigates the variation of quantile uncertainty (bias and variance) as a function of threshold using a semi‐parametric bootstrap algorithm. Furthermore, the article compares the performance of L‐moment and de Haan methods that are used for fitting the Pareto distribution to peak data. The analysis of simulated and actual U.S. wind speed data illustrates that the L‐moment method can lead to almost unbiased quantile estimates for certain thresholds. A threshold corresponding to minimum standard error appears to provide reasonable estimates of wind speed extremes. It is concluded that the quantification of uncertainty associated with a quantile estimate is necessary for selecting a suitable threshold and estimating the design wind speed. For this purpose, semi‐parametric bootstrap method has proved to be a simple, practical and effective tool. Copyright © 2003 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 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 | 0.006 | 0.025 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".