MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2101382509 · doi:10.5194/hess-8-993-2004

Mixed rectangular pulses models of rainfall

2004· article· en· W2101382509 on OpenAlexaff
Paul S.P. Cowpertwait

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsCanadian Association of Nurses in Oncology
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperposition principleMathematicsPoisson distributionSeries (stratigraphy)StormStochastic modellingMeteorologyPoint processStatisticsStatistical physicsEnvironmental scienceGeographyGeologyMathematical analysisPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A stochastic rainfall model, obtained as the superposition of independent Neyman-Scott Rectangular Pulses (NSRP), is proposed to provide a flexible parameterisation and general procedure for modelling rainfall. The methodology is illustrated using hourly data from Auckland, New Zealand, where the model is fitted to data collected for each calendar month over the period: 1966–1998. For data taken over the months April to August, two independent superposed NSRP processes are fitted, which may correspond to the existence of mixtures of convective and stratiform storm types for these months. The special case of the superposition of an independent NSRP process and a Poisson rectangular pulses process fits the data for January to March, whilst the original NSRP model (i.e. without superposition) fits the data for September to November. A simulation study verifies that the model performs well with respect to the distribution of annual totals, the proportion of dry periods, and extreme values. Keywords: stochastic processes; point processes; rainfall time series; Poisson cluster models

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.211
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations30
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrology and earth system sciencesSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207