Bibliographic record
Abstract
In general, the techniques to predict drought include statistical regression, time series, stochastic (or probabilistic), and, lately, pattern recognition techniques. All of these techniques require that a quantitative variable be identified to define drought, with which to begin the process of prediction. In the case of agricultural drought, such a variable can be the yield (production per unit area) of the major crop in a region (Kumar, 1998; Boken, 2000). The crop yield in a year can be compared with its long-term average, and drought intensity can be classified as nil, mild, moderate, severe, or disastrous, based on the difference between the current yield and the average yield. Regression techniques estimate crop yields using yield-affecting variables. A comprehensive list of possible variables that affect yield is provided in chapter 1. Usually, the weather variables routinely available for a historical period that significantly affect the yield are included in a regression analysis. Regression techniques using weather data during a growing season produce short-term estimates (e.g., Sakamoto, 1978; Idso et al., 1979; Slabbers and Dunin, 1981; Diaz et al., 1983; Cordery and Graham, 1989; Walker, 1989; Toure et al., 1995; Kumar, 1998). Various researchers in different parts of the world (see other chapters) have developed drought indices that can also be included along with the weather variables to estimate crop yield. For example, Boken and Shaykewich (2002) modifed the Western Canada Wheat Yield Model (Walker, 1989) drought index using daily temperature and precipitation data and advanced very high resolution radiometer (AVHRR) satellite data. The modified model improved the predictive power of the wheat yield model significantly. Some satellite data-based variables that can be used to predict crop yield are described in chapters 5, 6, 9, 13, 19, and 28. The short-term estimates are available just before or around harvest time. But many times long-term estimates are required to predict drought for next year, so that long-term planning for dealing with the effects of drought can be initiated in time.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".