MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3186034734 · doi:10.3808/jei.202100462

Parameter Uncertainty and Sensitivity Evaluation of Copula-Based Multivariate Hydroclimatic Risk Assessment

2021· article· en· W3186034734 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Informatics · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersRoyal Society
KeywordsCopula (linguistics)Multivariate statisticsBivariate analysisFlood mythEconometricsEnvironmental scienceMultivariate analysisRisk assessmentStatisticsUncertainty analysisMathematicsComputer scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Extensive uncertainties exist in hydroclimatic risk analysis. Especially in multivariate hydrologic risk inferences, uncertainties in individual hydroclimatic extremes such as floods and their dependence structure may lead to bias and uncertainty in future hydrologic risk predictions. In this study, a parameter uncertainty and sensitivity evaluation (PUSE) framework is proposed to quantify parameter uncertainties and then reveal their contributions to the multivariate hydroclimatic risk predictions. The predictive risks are finally generated by “integrating” the values over the posterior distributions of the parameters. The proposed approach was applied for bivariate risk analysis of compound floods at the Xiangxi River to characterize the concurrence probabilities of flood peaks and volumes. The results demonstrate that the proposed approach can quantify uncertainties in a copula-based multivariate risk analysis and characterize effects and contributions of parameters in marginal and dependence structures on the multivariate hydroclimatic risk predictions. In terms of the bivariate risk for flood peak and volume at the Xiangxi River, uncertainties in model parameters would lead to noticeable uncertainties even for moderate floods. The performances of the copula model for flood peak-volume at Xiangxi River are mainly affected by the uncertainties in location parameters of the two individual flood variables. Also, parameter uncertainty in the dependence structure (i.e., copula) would also poses explicit impacts on performance of the copula-based risk analyses model. These uncertainties would result into higher bivariate predictive risks than the values obtained by “optimal/deterministic” predictions. This indicates that uncertain- ties are required to be considered to provide reliable multivariate hydroclimatic risk predictions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.120
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.260 · 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