MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2065209617 · doi:10.1080/15730620903242832

Trends and multi-decadal variability of annual maximum precipitation for Seoul, South Korea

2009· article· en· W2065209617 on OpenAlexaff
Dae Il Jeong

Bibliographic record

VenueUrban Water Journal · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche Scientifique
FundersJoint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean
KeywordsPrecipitationFlood mythClimatologyWaveletGeographyChristian ministrySeries (stratigraphy)Environmental scienceMeteorologyPolitical scienceGeologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Flood risk management is an important and difficult problem for the densely populated and rapidly urbanised city of Seoul, South Korea. This study characterises long-term trends and variability in the city's annual maximum daily precipitation (AMP) over multiple decades. Smoothing the time series reveals that recent decades have witnessed a steep upward trend in AMP. Continuous wavelet analysis shows that the AMP series has statistically significant power in the 32–60-year periodicity band between 1880 and 1960 (one full cycle is clearly visible in the smoothed series). This feature has an even wider scope in the annual total precipitation series, suggesting that a real oscillation exists. Four climate indices were investigated as possible explanatory variables for the AMP series using cross-wavelet analysis, but no significant coherence between the signals was found. Finally, mean AMP forecasts based on three interpretations of the past linear trend are provided for flood risk management.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations2
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueUrban Water JournalSame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207