Kriging Methods for Modelling Spatial Basis Risk in Weather Index Insurances: A Technical Note
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The use of weather index insurances is subject to spatial basis risk, which arises from the fact that the location of the user's risk exposure is not the same as the location of any of the weather stations where an index can be measured. To gauge the effectiveness of weather index insurances, spatial interpolation techniques such as kriging can be adopted to estimate the relevant weather index from observations taken at nearby locations. In this paper, we study the performance of various statistical methods, ranging from simple nearest neighbor to more advanced trans-Gaussian kriging, in spatial interpolations of daily precipitations with data obtained from the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. We also investigate how spatial interpolations should be implemented in practice when the insurance is linked to popular weather indexes including annual consecutive dry days ($CDD$) and maximum five-day precipitation in one month ($MFP$). It is found that although spatially interpolating the raw weather variables on a daily basis is more sophisticated and computationally demanding, it does not necessarily yield superior results compared to direct interpolations of $CDD$/$MFP$ on a yearly/monthly basis. This intriguing outcome can be explained by the statistical properties of the weather indexes and the underlying weather variables.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".