Ajuste de distribuições de probabilidade à precipitação mensal no estado de Pernambuco – Brasil
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Este estudo teve como objetivo identificar modelos de distribuição de probabilidade que melhor se ajustam a dados de precipitação mensal para o estado de Pernambuco – Brasil. Foram analisados os ajustes de seis distribuições de probabilidade de 2 parâmetros: gama (GAM), log normal (LNORM), Weibull (WEI), Pareto Generalizado (PG), Gumbel (GUM) e normal (NORM) para dados de precipitação mensal de 40 estações pluviométricas distribuídas no estado de Pernambuco, no período de 1988 a 2017 (30 anos). O método de Máxima Verossimilhança (ML) foi utilizado para estimar os parâmetros dos modelos e a seleção do modelo baseou-se em uma modificação da estatística de Shapiro-Wilk. Os resultados mostraram que as distribuições de 2 parâmetros são flexíveis o suficiente para descrever dados de precipitação mensal para o estado de Pernambuco e que os modelos log normal, gama, Weibull e PG se ajustaram melhor aos dados. Os modelos Gumbel e normal raramente se ajustaram aos dados independente do mês analisado.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".