MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2914772728 · doi:10.1002/cjs.11485

A hierarchical point process with application to storm cell modelling

2019· article· en· W2914772728 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Alisha Albert‐Green, W. John Braun, C. B. Dean, Craig A. Miller

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Statistics · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicPoint processes and geometric inequalities
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia, Okanagan CampusUniversity of British ColumbiaActuaWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPoint processStormInferenceCluster analysisHierarchical clusteringHierarchyStatistical inferenceComputer scienceCluster (spacecraft)Hierarchical database modelGaussian processPoint (geometry)Process (computing)Data miningGaussianStatisticsEconometricsMathematicsMeteorologyArtificial intelligenceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In environmetrics, interest often centres around the development of models and methods for making inference on observed point patterns assumed to be generated by latent spatial or spatio‐temporal processes, which may have a hierarchical structure. In this research, motivated by the analysis of spatio‐temporal storm cell data, we generalize the Neyman–Scott parent–child process to account for hierarchical clustering. This is accomplished by allowing the parents to follow a log‐Gaussian Cox process thereby incorporating correlation and facilitating inference at all levels of the hierarchy. This approach is applied to monthly storm cell data from the Bismarck, North Dakota radar station from April through August 2003 and we compare these results to simpler cluster processes to demonstrate the advantages of accounting for both levels of correlation present in these hierarchically clustered point patterns. The Canadian Journal of Statistics 47: 46–64; 2019 © 2019 Statistical Society of Canada

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)0.000
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: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.709
Threshold uncertainty score0.368

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of StatisticsSame topicPoint processes and geometric inequalitiesFrench-language works237,207