Assessment of Regression Model for Rainfall in Saudi Arabia (1979-2011) Using Dummy Variables
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: This study aims to analyze rainfall in Saudi Arabia by designing models based on data from 20 stations across the Kingdom from 1979 to 2011. Methods: The analysis employed a multiple linear regression model with rainfall as the dependent variable and annual quarters as the independent variables. Dummy variables were utilized in the analysis. The regression model provided valuable insights into the impact of rainfall rates in different quarters across Saudi Arabia. Monthly data was collected from each region of the Kingdom during the study period and categorized into five groups based on average rainfall: Group 1 (5-15 mm), Group 2 (15-25 mm), Group 3 (25-35 mm), Group 4 (35-45 mm), and Group 5 (45-70 mm). Each group was represented by a separate regression model. To reduce the number of dummy variables in the model, the monthly data was converted to quarterly data. Results: A significant finding of this study is that all models were statistically significant, indicating that rainfall distribution is influenced by the annual quarters. Furthermore, it was observed that the average rainfall in most quarters across different regions was statistically significant, except for the fourth quarter in Group 5 and the third quarter in Groups 1, 2, and 4. Conclusions: The inclusion of dummy variables as independent variables in the multiple linear regression model proved to be a novel and effective approach for analyzing rainfall time series. The results can serve as a foundation for future studies, enabling prediction and informed decision-making based on the findings.
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 | 0.009 | 0.016 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".