MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319892687 · doi:10.1061/40927(243)404

Some Parameter Estimators in the Generalized Pareto Model and Their Inconsistency with Observed Data

2007· article· en· W2319892687 on OpenAlexaff
Fahim Ashkar, C. Nwentsa Tatsambon

Bibliographic record

VenueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2007 · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversité de Moncton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEstimatorQuantileUpper and lower boundsMonte Carlo methodMathematicsGeneralized Pareto distributionApplied mathematicsSample size determinationPareto distributionStatisticsDistribution (mathematics)Method of moments (probability theory)Mathematical analysisExtreme value theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The generalized Pareto distribution (GPD) is widely used in the frequency modeling of hydrological extremes. Statistical methods used to fit this model to data include the methods of maximum likelihood (ML), of moments (MM), of probability weighted moments (PWM), and of generalized probability weighted moments (GPWM). When the shape parameter of the GPD is positive, the sample space is a finite interval whose upper bound depends on the distribution parameters. The MM, PWM and GPWM methods may produce estimates of this upper bound that are inconsistent with the observed data. This inconsistency occurs when one or more sample observations exceed the estimated upper bound, thus making this estimated upper bound physically unjustifiable. In this paper we shed more light on this problem of inconsistency with the data and examine its consequences by using Monte Carlo simulation. We provide new guidelines for choosing between the ML, MM, PWM and GPWM methods for estimating GPD quantiles.

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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.227
Threshold uncertainty score0.511

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0000.001
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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.193 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWorld Environmental and Water Resources Congress 2007Same topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207