Analysis of cross-correlated chaotic streamflows
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A trial is made to explore the applicability of chaos analysis outside the commonly reported analysis of a single chaotic time series. Two cross-correlated streamflows, the Little River and the Reed Creek, Virginia, USA, are analysed with regard to the chaotic behaviour. Segments of missing data are assumed in one of the time series and estimated using the other complete time series. Linear regression and artificial neural network models are employed. Two experiments are conducted in the analysis: (a) fitting one global model and (b) fitting multiple local models. Each local model is in the direct vicinity of the missing data. A nonlinear noise reduction method is used to reduce the noise in both time series and the two experiments are repeated. It is found that using multiple local models to estimate the missing data is superior to fitting one global model with regard to the mean squared error and the mean relative error of the estimated values. This result is attributed to the chaotic behaviour of the streamflows under consideration.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 it