Record extension for short-gauged water quality parameters using a newly proposed robust version of the Line of Organic Correlation technique
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. In many situations the extension of hydrological or water quality time series at short-gauged stations is required. Ordinary least squares regression (OLS) of any hydrological or water quality variable is a traditional and commonly used record extension technique. However, OLS tends to underestimate the variance in the extended records, which leads to underestimation of high percentiles and overestimation of low percentiles, given that the data are normally distributed. The development of the line of organic correlation (LOC) technique is aimed at correcting this bias. On the other hand, the Kendall-Theil robust line (KTRL) method has been proposed as an analogue of OLS with the advantage of being robust in the presence of outliers. Given that water quality data are characterised by the presence of outliers, positive skewness and non-normal distribution of data, a robust record extension technique is more appropriate. In this paper, four record-extension techniques are described, and their properties are explored. These techniques are OLS, LOC, KTRL and a new technique proposed in this paper, the robust line of organic correlation technique (RLOC). RLOC includes the advantage of the LOC in reducing the bias in estimating the variance, but at the same time it is also robust in the presence of outliers. A Monte Carlo study and empirical experiment were conducted to examine the four techniques for the accuracy and precision of the estimate of statistical moments and over the full range of percentiles. Results of the Monte Carlo study showed that the OLS and KTRL techniques have serious deficiencies as record-extension techniques, while the LOC and RLOC techniques are nearly similar. However, RLOC outperforms OLS, KTRL and LOC when using real water quality records.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".