MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2013730908 · doi:10.1080/02626667.2012.743662

Modelling heteroscedasticty of streamflow times series

2012· article· en· W2013730908 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Sciences Journal · 2012
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
KeywordsAutoregressive conditional heteroskedasticityHeteroscedasticityAutoregressive integrated moving averageEconometricsMathematicsSeries (stratigraphy)Autoregressive modelConditional varianceTime seriesStreamflowExponential functionStatisticsVolatility (finance)GeographyGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Time series modelling approaches are useful tools for simulating and forecasting hydrological variables and their change through time. Although linear time series models are common in hydrology, the nonlinear time series model, the Generalized Autoregressive Conditional Heteroscedasticity (GARCH) model, has rarely been used in hydrology and water resources engineering. The GARCH model considers the conditional variance remaining in the residuals of the linear time series models, such as an ARMA or an ARIMA model. In the present study, the advantages of a GARCH model against a linear ARIMA model are investigated using three classes of the GARCH approach, namely Power GARCH, Threshold GARCH and Exponential GARCH models. A daily streamflow time series of the Matapedia River, Quebec, Canada, is selected for this study. It is shown that the ARIMA (13,1,4) model is adequate for modelling streamflow time series of Matapedia River, but the Engle test shows the existence of heteroscedasticity in the residuals of the ARIMA model. Therefore, an ARIMA (13,1,4)-GARCH (3,1) error model is fitted to the data. The residuals of this model are examined for the existence of heteroscedasticity. The Engle test indicates that the GARCH model has considerably reduced the heteroscedasticity of the residuals. However, the Exponential GARCH model seems to completely remove the heteroscedasticity from the residuals. The multi-criteria evaluation for model performance also proves that the Exponential GARCH model is the best model among ARIMA and GARCH models. Therefore, the application of a GARCH model is strongly suggested for hydrological time series modelling as the conditional variance of the residuals of the linear models can be removed and the efficiency of the model will be improved. Editor D. Koutsoyiannis; Associate editor C. Onof Citation Modarres, R. and Ouarda, T.B.M.J., 2013. Modelling heteroscedasticty of streamflow times series. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 58 (1), 1–11.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.359
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.000

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.222 · 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