MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2808169991 · doi:10.1002/env.2543

Estimating precipitation extremes using the log‐histospline

2018· article· en· W2808169991 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironmetrics · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsPacific Institute for Climate SolutionsPacific Institute for the Mathematical SciencesUniversity of Victoria
FundersDivision of Mathematical SciencesDivision of Ocean SciencesNational Science Foundation of Sri LankaNational Center for Atmospheric ResearchNational Science Foundation
KeywordsGeneralized Pareto distributionSmoothingHistogramMathematicsRange (aeronautics)RemainderStatisticsPareto principleComputer scienceExtreme value theory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract One of the commonly used approaches in modeling extremes is the peaks‐over‐threshold (POT) method. The POT method models exceedances over a threshold that is sufficiently high so that the exceedance has approximately a generalized Pareto distribution. This method requires the selection of a threshold that might affect the estimates. Here, we propose an alternative method, the log‐histospline (LHSpline), to explore modeling the tail behavior and the remainder of the density in one step using the full range of the data. LHSpline applies a smoothing spline model to a finely binned histogram of the log‐transformed data to estimate its log density. By construction, a LHSpline estimation is constrained to have polynomial tail behavior, a feature commonly observed in daily rainfall observations. We illustrate the LHSpline method by analyzing precipitation data collected in Houston, Texas.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.623
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.237 · 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