MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3196654720 · doi:10.2166/wcc.2021.272

A maximum entropy copula-based frequency analysis method for assessing bivariate drought risk: a case study of the Kaidu River Basin

2021· article· en· W3196654720 on OpenAlexaff
Xiaofan Yang, Yongping Li, Guohe Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Climate Change · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersNational Natural Science Foundation of China
KeywordsBivariate analysisReturn periodCopula (linguistics)Joint probability distributionStructural basinFrequency analysisStatisticsEnvironmental scienceEntropy (arrow of time)ClimatologyKullback–Leibler divergenceEconometricsMathematicsGeologyGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract In this study, a maximum entropy copula-based frequency analysis (MECFA) method is developed through integrating maximum entropy, copulas and frequency analysis into a general framework. The advantages of MECFA are that the marginal modeling requires no assumption and joint distribution preserves the dependence structure of drought variables. MECFA is applied to assessing bivariate drought frequency in the Kaidu River Basin, China. Results indicate that the Kaidu River Basin experienced 28 drought events during 1958–2011, and drought inter-arrival time is 10.8 months. The average duration is 6.2 months (severity 4.6), and the most severe drought event lasts for 35 months (severity 41.2) that occurred from June 1977 to March 1980. Results also disclose that hydrological drought index (HDI) 1 is suitable for drought frequency analysis in the target year of return periods of 5 and 10, HDI 3, HDI 6 and HDI 12 are fit for the target year of return periods of 20, 50 and 100. The joint return period can be used as the upper bound of the target return period, and the joint return period that either duration or severity reaches the drought threshold can be used as the lower bound of the target return period.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.233
Threshold uncertainty score0.412

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.270 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water and Climate ChangeSame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207