Statistical Assessment of Spatial Tornado Occurrences in Canada: Modeling and Estimation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Canada experiences a relatively large number of tornadoes, which can cause a significant amount of damage and fatalities. In this study, a preferred prediction model for the spatially varying tornado occurrence rate is developed for Canada. The development takes into account the most commonly used spatial stochastic models and the underreporting that is due to low population density. It incorporates the annual average cloud-to-ground lightning flash (ACGLF) density and annual average thunderstorm days (ATD) as covariates in the prediction model. The model parameters estimation is carried out by using both the maximum likelihood method and the Bayesian inference. The analysis results indicate that the negative binomial model is preferable to the zero-inflated Poisson model and the Poisson model. The results show that tornado occurrence in Canada is associated with large overdispersion. Also, the statistical analysis indicates that the prediction model for the tornado occurrence rate developed on the basis of Bayesian inference is relatively insensitive to the assumed “noninformative” prior distributions. A prediction model is suggested for the spatially varying tornado occurrence rate based on the negative binomial model with the ACGLF density and ATD as covariates.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".