Selection between the generalized Pareto and kappa distributions in peaks-over-threshold hydrological frequency modelling
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrologists use the generalized Pareto (GP) distribution in peaks-over-threshold (POT) modelling of extremes. A model with similar uses is the two-parameter kappa (KAP) distribution. KAP has had fewer hydrological applications than GP, but some studies have shown it to merit wider use. The problem of choosing between GP and KAP arises quite often in frequency analyses. This study, by comparing some discrimination methods between these two models, aims to show which method(s) is (are) recommended. Three specific methods are considered: one uses the Anderson-Darling goodness-of-fit (GoF) statistic, another uses the ratio of maximized likelihood (closely related to the Akaike information criterion and the Bayesian information criterion), and the third employs a normality transformation followed by application of the Shapiro-Wilk statistic. We show this last method to be the most recommendable, due to its advantages with sizes typically encountered in hydrology. We apply the simulation results to some flood POT datasets.EDITOR D. Koutsoyiannis; ASSOCIATE EDITOR E. Volpi
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it