MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2515862053 · doi:10.1080/02626667.2015.1057142

Comparative analysis of predictive methods for drought durations: a case of monthly and annual streamflow droughts in Atlantic Canada

2015· article· en· W2515862053 on OpenAlexafffundabout
T.C. Sharma, U.S. Panu

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Sciences Journal · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsLakehead University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaIstanbul Teknik ÜniversitesiLakehead University
KeywordsStreamflowWeibull distributionMarkov chainStatisticsMathematicsClimatologyPosition (finance)EconometricsComputer scienceEnvironmental scienceGeographyDrainage basinGeologyCartographyEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Methods based on the recursive probability, the extreme number theorem, and Markov chain (MC) concepts were applied to predict drought lengths (duration) on the standardized (termed as standardized hydrological index, SHI) sequences of monthly and annual river flows from Atlantic Canada. Results of the study indicated that the MC-based method is the most efficient, reliable and versatile method for predicting drought durations followed by the extreme-number-based method. The recursive-probability-based method was found to be computationally intensive and less efficient, although it provided a powerful means for calibrating the empirical plotting position formula needed in the MC-based method. The Weibull plotting position formula turned out to be a suitable measure of the exceedance probability in MC methodology for predicting drought lengths in Atlantic Canada. Based on results, it can be inferred that the MC-based method can be extended to MC2 and higher-order chains for predicting drought lengths on SHI sequences. The predictive capability of the extreme-number-theorem-based method is limited only to independent or weakly first-order persistent SHI sequences.EDITOR D. KoutsoyiannisASSOCIATE EDITOR Q. Zhang

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)0.002
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 score0.398
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.340
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrological Sciences JournalSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207