MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4412726587 · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-13177-y

Multi-level trend analysis of extreme climate indices by a novel hybrid method of fuzzy logic and innovative trend analysis

2025· article· en· W4412726587 on OpenAlexaff
Fereshteh Modaresi, Ali Danandeh Mehr, Iman Sardarian Bajgiran, Mir Jafar Sadegh Safari

Bibliographic record

VenueScientific Reports · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
FundersFerdowsi University of Mashhad
KeywordsTrend analysisClimate changeEnvironmental scienceInterpretabilityFuzzy logicClimatologyPrecipitationReliability (semiconductor)Computer scienceStatisticsMathematicsMeteorologyGeographyPower (physics)EcologyBiologyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Multi-level trend analysis of extreme climate variables is an efficient method for in-depth investigation of the climate change impacts on ecohydrology. However, most of existing statistical methods do not reveal potential trends in different levels of data. In this study, a new approach namely Fuzzy Innovative Trend Analysis (FITA) was introduced that takes the advantages of fuzzy logic to improve and facilitate Innovative Trend Analysis (ITA) abilities to multilevel trend detection at Extreme Climate Indices (ECIs). Regarding the graphical nature of the proposed method, two new indices, namely Grow Percent (GP) and Total Grow Percent (TGP) were suggested for quantifying the power of trend at distinct levels. The FITA was utilized for trend detection at three levels of four important ECIs related to precipitation and temperature. To this end, long-term (1960-2021) daily temperature and precipitation observations at six meteorology stations across diverse climatic zones of Iran were used. The multilevel trends attained by the FITA were further compared to those of ITA, Mann-Kendall (M-K), and Sen's slope (SS) tests. The results indicated that the FITA provides promising results with higher interpretability and reliability than its counterparts at all stations. The underlying high-resolution trends detected at certain stations also pointed out that the M-K and SS tests may yield in misleading interpretations when they are used for identifying trends in ECIs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.259 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueScientific Reports→Same topicClimate variability and models→French-language works237,207→