The influence of autocorrelation on the ability to detect trend in hydrological series
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This study investigated using Monte Carlo simulation the interaction between a linear trend and a lag‐one autoregressive (AR(1)) process when both exist in a time series. Simulation experiments demonstrated that the existence of serial correlation alters the variance of the estimate of the Mann–Kendall (MK) statistic; and the presence of a trend alters the estimate of the magnitude of serial correlation. Furthermore, it was shown that removal of a positive serial correlation component from time series by pre‐whitening resulted in a reduction in the magnitude of the existing trend; and the removal of a trend component from a time series as a first step prior to pre‐whitening eliminates the influence of the trend on the serial correlation and does not seriously affect the estimate of the true AR(1). These results indicate that the commonly used pre‐whitening procedure for eliminating the effect of serial correlation on the MK test leads to potentially inaccurate assessments of the significance of a trend; and certain procedures will be more appropriate for eliminating the impact of serial correlation on the MK test. In essence, it was advocated that a trend first be removed in a series prior to ascertaining the magnitude of serial correlation. This alternative approach and the previously existing approaches were employed to assess the significance of a trend in serially correlated annual mean and annual minimum streamflow data of some pristine river basins in Ontario, Canada. Results indicate that, with the previously existing procedures, researchers and practitioners may have incorrectly identified the possibility of significant trends. Copyright © Environment Canada. Published by 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 | 0.022 | 0.153 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".