The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Objective analyses and mapping techniques for rainfall fields: An objective comparison
Abstract
Many methods have been proposed and applied individually to rainfall fields in order to estimate point or average values at ungauged sites. This paper reviews some of the usual as well as some of the more recent techniques. They are classified according to their fundamental principles, optimality criteria, and practical aspects. Some theoretical developments, mostly for the statistically based techniques, are offered, and the practical aspects are mainly directed to the particular case of rainfall fields. A case study is presented for a region with particularly high rainfall variability, providing a good sample of events for testing the sensitivity of the estimation to the different methods used. The identification of statistical structure functions, required by certain methods using regionalized variable concepts, is discussed in detail for the case considered. Method evaluation is based on a classical validation technique that divides the available stations into two separate networks, i.e., a base network is used to perform estimations at the stations of a test network for a set of independent storm events. Careful attention is paid to result interpretation and visualisation. Finally, conclusions are drawn as to which method should be implemented, taking into account cost‐efficiency considerations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Determining the number of components from the matrix of partial correlations
Velicer, W. F. (1976) · Psychometrika · doi:10.1007/bf02293557 · Cited by 2,438
Cited by
Geostatistical approaches for incorporating elevation into the spatial interpolation of rainfall
Goovaerts, P. (2000) · Journal of Hydrology · doi:10.1016/s0022-1694(00)00144-x · Cited by 1,544
A 50‐year high‐resolution atmospheric reanalysis over France with the Safran system
Vidal, J., Martin, E., Franchistéguy, L., Baillon, M., & Soubeyroux, J. (2010) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.2003 · Cited by 788
Simolo, C., Brunetti, M., Maugeri, M., & Nanni, T. (2010) · International Journal of Climatology · doi:10.1002/joc.1992 · Cited by 111
Metadata
- Authors
- Creutin, J. D., & Obled, C.
- Venue
- Water Resources Research
- Publisher
- American Geophysical Union (AGU)
- Published
- 1982-04
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 413-431
- ISSN
- 0043-1397 (ISSN-L)
- 1944-7973
- OpenAlex
- W2026879423
- Cited by
- 370
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 2.93
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Objective analyses and mapping techniques for rainfall fields: An objective comparison. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1029/wr018i002p00413
- The paper
- Creutin, J. D., & Obled, C. (1982). Objective analyses and mapping techniques for rainfall fields: An objective comparison. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/wr018i002p00413
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.