MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3207485465 · doi:10.1175/jamc-d-20-0141.1

Statistical Assessment of Spatial Tornado Occurrences in Canada: Modeling and Estimation

2021· article· en· W3207485465 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Q. Huang, Wei Jiang, Han Hong

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryWestern University
FundersChinese Government ScholarshipNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsOverdispersionTornadoNegative binomial distributionPoisson distributionCovariateStatisticsEconometricsBayesian probabilityStatistical inferenceBayesian inferenceEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyMathematicsGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.572
Threshold uncertainty score0.976

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.246 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Applied Meteorology and ClimatologySame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207