Variability of spatial patterns of autocorrelation and heterogeneity embedded in precipitation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Spatial interpolation of precipitation data is an essential input for hydrological modelling. At present, the most frequently used spatial interpolation methods for precipitation are based on the assumption of stationary in spatial autocorrelation and spatial heterogeneity. As climate change is altering the precipitation, stationary in spatial autocorrelation and spatial heterogeneity should be first analysed before spatial interpolation methods are applied. This study aims to propose a framework to understand the spatial patterns of autocorrelation and heterogeneity embedded in precipitation using Moran's I, Getis–Ord test, and semivariogram. Variations in autocorrelation and heterogeneity are analysed by the Mann–Kendall test. The indexes and test methods are applied to the 7-day precipitation series which are corresponding to the annual maximum 7-day flood volume (P-AM7FV) upstream of the Changjiang river basin. The spatial autocorrelation of the P-AM7FV showed a statistically significant increasing trend over the whole study area. Spatial interpolation schemes for precipitation may lead to better estimation and lower error for the spatial distribution of the areal precipitation. However, owing to the changing summer monsoons, random variation in the spatial heterogeneity analysis shows a significant increasing trend, which reduces the reliability of the distributed hydrological model with the input of local or microscales.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".