Effects of multi-source topographic features on lightning activity in Inner Mongolia: a quantitative analysis based on spatio-temporal data mining and machine learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In order to explore the relationship between multi-source terrain features and lightning activity in Inner Mongolia, monitoring data and digital terrain elevation data of thunderstorm activity in Inner Mongolia from 2014 to 2025 were collected, and the spatio-temporal data mining method of mathematical and statistical analysis was used to analyze the distribution characteristics of lightning activity in Inner Mongolia.Based on the selected terrain feature factors, the machine learning method of multiple regression analysis is used to establish a research model of multi-source terrain features and lightning activity for quantitative analysis.The results show that the frequency of ground flashes in Inner Mongolia is mainly concentrated in May-October, accounting for more than 92% of the whole year, and the seasonal characteristics of its ground flash activities are significant, and the current intensity is mainly concentrated in the range of 20-40 kA.Correlation analysis reveals that multiple features of multi-sourced terrain are positively and negatively correlated with the frequency of lightning ground flashes and the current intensity (p < 0.05), and the prediction error of the constructed regression model for the ground flashes' frequency and the current intensity is 7.31%.The prediction errors of the constructed regression model on ground flash frequency and current intensity are 7.31% and 5.08%, which can provide a reference for lightning disaster prevention and mitigation in Inner Mongolia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".