Dissecting innovative trend analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Investigating the nature of trends in time series is one of the most common analyses performed in hydro-climate research. However, trend analysis is also widely abused and misused, often overlooking its underlying assumptions, which prevent its application to certain types of data. A mechanistic application of graphical diagnostics and statistical hypothesis tests for deterministic trends available in ready-to-use software can result in misleading conclusions. This problem is exacerbated by the existence of questionable methodologies that lack a sound theoretical basis. As a paradigmatic example, we consider the so-called Şen’s ‘innovative’ trend analysis (ITA) and the corresponding formal trend tests. Reviewing each element of ITA, we show that (1) ITA diagrams are equivalent to well-known two-sample quantile-quantile (q–q) plots; (2) when applied to finite-size samples, ITA diagrams do not enable the type of trend analysis that it is supposed to do; (3) the expression of ITA confidence intervals quantifying the uncertainty of ITA diagrams is mathematically incorrect; and (4) the formulation of the formal tests is also incorrect and their correct version is equivalent to a standard parametric test for the difference between two means. Overall, we show that ITA methodology is affected by sample size, distribution shape, and serial correlation as any parametric technique devised for trend analysis. Therefore, our results call into question the ITA method and the interpretation of the corresponding empirical results reported in the literature.
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 | 0.018 | 0.091 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".