A probability distribution for precipitation data analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hydrologic design is often based on assessments of large return interval measures; it is vital to be able to conclude them as precisely as possible. Henceforth, the selection of a probability distribution is very crucial for such cases. In view of this scenario, we propose and study a pliant probability distribution for precipitation data analysis. Some mathematical and statistical properties are analyzed. In order to make stronger predictions and judge the realistic return period, we have also characterized the model via Laplace transformation. We have estimated its parameters via the maximum likelihood estimation and constructed its information matrix for developing the confidence belt of population parameters. Moreover, a real‐life setup is also considered by applying the model over precipitation data of diverse regions, including Jacksonville, Florida (USA), Barkhan (Pakistan), British Columbia (Canada), and Alexandria (Egypt). This investigated study is based on various statistical parametric and nonparametric tests, which indicates that the proposed model is one of the better strategies for precipitation data analysis when compared with the famous three‐parameter Kappa model.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".