MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2910339886 · doi:10.4095/247832

Temporal trend analysis of synthetic and real hydroclimate time series and impacts of long term quasi-periodic components on trend tests

2009· report· en· W2910339886 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zhuoheng Chen, Stephen E. Grasby

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typereport
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsNatural Resources Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeries (stratigraphy)Term (time)ClimatologyTime seriesTrend analysisEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyGeographyGeologyMathematicsStatisticsPhysicsPaleontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Studies of climate and hydro-meteorological time series have found the presence of decadal and inter-decadal oscillations of quasi-periodic components (broader band signals) as part of long term natural variations in the data. If the oscillation of the quasi-periodic component is prominent, the impacts on the Mann-Kendall (M-K) and Thiel-Sen (T-S) trend tests could lead to a biased estimate and affect the prediction of future trends. This study performed the Thiel-Sen test on simulated time series of periodic components with and without trends as well as real time series of climate and river discharge data with long records in the Canadian Prairies. The results of tests suggest that the T-S test is sensitive to the presence of oscillation of long term quasi-periodic components. Data record length, magnitude of cyclic components and phase are the three most important factors affecting the M-K type of tests. The conclusion derived for the T-S test in this study can also be applied to the M-K test.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.279
Teacher spread0.254 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2009
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→