MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954477736 · doi:10.5539/ijsp.v8n4p85

Application of Extreme Value Theory in Predicting Climate Change Induced Extreme Rainfall in Kenya

2019· article· en· W2954477736 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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Statistics and Probability · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGumbel distributionExtreme value theoryReturn periodGeneralized Pareto distributionGeneralized extreme value distributionQuantileMathematicsStatisticsClimate changeExtreme weatherEnvironmental scienceClimatologyEconometricsGeographyEcologyFlood myth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Climate change has brought about unprecedented new weather patterns, one of which is changes in extreme rainfall. In Kenya, heavy rains and severe flash floods have left people dead and displaced hundreds from their settlements. In order to build a resilient society and achieve sustainable development, it is paramount that adequate inference about extreme rainfall be made. To this end, this research modelled and predicted extreme rainfall events in Kenya using Extreme Value Theory for rainfall data from 1901-2016. Maximum Likelihood Estimation was used to estimate the model parameters and block maxima approach was used to fit the Generalized Extreme Value Distribution (GEVD) while the Peak Over Threshold method was used to fit the Generalized Pareto Distribution (GPD). The Gumbel distribution was found to be the optimal model from the GEVD while the Exponential distribution gave the optimal model over the threshold value. Furthermore, prediction for the return periods of 10, 20, 50 and 100 years were made using the return level estimates and their corresponding confidence intervals were presented. It was found that increase in return periods leads to a corresponding increase in return levels. However, the GPD gave higher return levels for 10 and 20 years compared to GEVD. While, for higher return periods 50 and 100 years, the GEVD gave higher return levels compared to the GPD. Model diagnostics using probability, density, quantile and return level plots indicated that the models provided were a good fit for the data.

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)0.002
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.105
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.239 · 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