Role of Cluster Validity Indices in Delineation of Precipitation Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The delineation of precipitation regions is to identify homogeneous zones in which the characteristics of the process are statistically similar. The regionalization process has three main components: (i) delineation of regions using clustering algorithms, (ii) determining the optimal number of regions using cluster validity indices (CVIs), and (iii) validation of regions for homogeneity using L-moments ratio test. The identification of the optimal number of clusters will significantly affect the homogeneity of the regions. The objective of this study is to investigate the performance of the various CVIs in identifying the optimal number of clusters, which maximizes the homogeneity of the precipitation regions. The k-means clustering algorithm is adopted to delineate the regions using location-based attributes for two large areas from Canada, namely, the Prairies and the Great Lakes-St Lawrence lowlands (GL-SL) region. The seasonal precipitation data for 55 years (1951–2005) is derived using high-resolution ANUSPLIN gridded point data for Canada. The results indicate that the optimal number of clusters and the regional homogeneity depends on the CVI adopted. Among 42 cluster indices considered, 15 of them outperform in identifying the homogeneous precipitation regions. The Dunn, D e t _ r a t i o and Trace( W − 1 B ) indices found to be the best for all seasons in both the regions.
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 | 0.035 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".