MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2171336569 · doi:10.5539/mas.v9n11p89

An Investigation Towards The Suitability Of Vector Autoregressive Approach On Modeling Meteorological Data

2015· article· en· W2171336569 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Siti Mariam Norrulashikin

Bibliographic record

VenueModern Applied Science · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEconomics, Econometrics and Finance
TopicFinancial Risk and Volatility Modeling
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversiti Teknologi Malaysia
KeywordsAutoregressive modelVector autoregressionMultivariate statisticsComputer scienceVariable (mathematics)Time seriesSeries (stratigraphy)Identification (biology)Wind speedVariablesProcess (computing)StatisticsEconometricsMathematicsMeteorologyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In most meteorological problems, two or more variables evolve over time. These variables not only haverelationships with each other, but also depend on each other. Although in many situations the interest was onmodelling single variable as a vector time series without considering the impact other variables have on it. Thevector autoregression (VAR) approach to multiple time series analysis are potentially useful in many types ofsituations which involve the building of models for discrete multivariate time series. This approach has 4important stages of the process that are data pre-processing, model identification, parameter estimation, andmodel adequacy checking. In this research, VAR modeling strategy was applied in modeling three variables ofmeteorological variables, which include temperature, wind speed and rainfall data. All data are monthly data,taken from the Kuala Krai station from January 1985 to December 2009. Two models were suggested byinformation criterion procedures, however VAR (3) model is the most suitable model for the data sets based onthe model adequacy checking and accuracy testing.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.383
Threshold uncertainty score0.443

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.266
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.034 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueModern Applied ScienceSame topicFinancial Risk and Volatility ModelingFrench-language works237,207