Data‐based analysis of bivariate copula tail dependence for drought duration and severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract In recent decades, copula functions have been applied in bivariate drought duration and severity frequency analysis. Among several potential copulas, Clayton has been mostly used in drought analysis. In this research, we studied the influence of the tail shape of various copula functions (i.e. Gumbel, Frank, Clayton and Gaussian) on drought bivariate frequency analysis. The appropriateness of Clayton copula for the characterization of drought characteristics is also investigated. Drought data are extracted from standardized precipitation index time series for four stations in Canada (La Tuque and Grande Prairie) and Iran (Anzali and Zahedan). Both duration and severity data sets are positively skewed. Different marginal distributions were first fitted to drought duration and severity data. The gamma and exponential distributions were selected for drought duration and severity, respectively, according to the positive skewness and Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. The results of copula modelling show that the Clayton copula function is not an appropriate choice for the used data sets in the current study and does not give more drought risk information than an independent model for which the duration and severity dependence is not significant. The reason is that the dependence of two variables in the upper tail of Clayton copula is very weak and similar to the independent case, whereas the observed data in the transformed domain of cumulative density function show high association in the upper tail. Instead, the Frank and Gumbel copula functions show better performance than Clayton function for drought bivariate frequency analysis. Copyright © 2012 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 | 0.003 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".