A Review and Comparison of Changepoint Detection Techniques for Climate Data
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: Not applicableConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: ReviewConsensus signal: Review
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.990
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.896
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.284 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
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
Abstract
Abstract This review article enumerates, categorizes, and compares many of the methods that have been proposed to detect undocumented changepoints in climate data series. The methods examined include the standard normal homogeneity (SNH) test, Wilcoxon’s nonparametric test, two-phase regression (TPR) procedures, inhomogeneity tests, information criteria procedures, and various variants thereof. All of these methods have been proposed in the climate literature to detect undocumented changepoints, but heretofore there has been little formal comparison of the techniques on either real or simulated climate series. This study seeks to unify the topic, showing clearly the fundamental differences among the assumptions made by each procedure and providing guidelines for which procedures work best in different situations. It is shown that the common trend TPR and Sawa’s Bayes criteria procedures seem optimal for most climate time series, whereas the SNH procedure and its nonparametric variant are probably best when trend and periodic effects can be diminished by using homogeneous reference series. Two applications to annual mean temperature series are given. Directions for future research are discussed.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology
- Topic
- Climate variability and models
- Field
- Environmental Science
- Canadian institutions
- Environment and Climate Change Canada
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- Wilcoxon signed-rank testHomogeneity (statistics)Nonparametric statisticsSeries (stratigraphy)Computer scienceClimate changeEconometricsBayes' theoremStatisticsTrend analysisHomogeneousRegressionData miningMathematicsMachine learningArtificial intelligenceBayesian probabilityGeology
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes