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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Faithful Chiagoziem Onwuegbuche, Alpha B. Kenyatta, Steeven Belvinos Affognon, Exavery P. Enock, Mary O. Akinade

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.047

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
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

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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Statistics and ProbabilitySame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207