Researcher profile

Iuri da Silva Diniz

Iuri da Silva Diniz contributes to research discovery and scholarly infrastructure.

ResearcherAffiliation not importedOpen to collaborate

Trust snapshot

Quick read

Trust 11 - UnverifiedVerification L1Unclaimed author
1works
0followers
2topics
4close collaborators

Actions

Decide how to stay connected

Follow researcher0

Identity and collaboration

How to connect with this researcher

Claiming links this public author record to a researcher profile and unlocks direct collaboration workflows.

Log in to claim

Direct collaboration

Open a focused conversation when the fit is right

Claim this author entity first to unlock direct invitations.

Research graph

See the researcher in context

Open full explorer

Inspect adjacent work, topics, institutions and collaborators without jumping out to a separate graph page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Published work

1 published item(s)

preprint2022arXiv

Global-threshold and backbone high-resolution weather radar networks are significantly complementary in a watershed

There are several criteria for building up networks from time series related to different points in geographical space. The most used criterion is the Global-Threshold (GT). Using a weather radar dataset, this paper shows that the Backbone (BB) - a local-threshold criterion - generates networks whose geographical configuration is complementary to the GT networks. We compare the results for two well-known similarities measures: the Pearson Correlation (PC) coefficient and the Mutual Information (MI). The extracted backbone network (miBB), whose number of links is the same as the global MI (miGT), has the lowest average shortest path and presents a small-world effect. Regarding the global PC (pcGT) and its corresponding BB network (pcBB), there is a significant linear relationship: $R2=0.77$ with a slope of $1.15$ (p-value $<E-7$) for the pcGT network, and $R2=0.68$ with a slope of $0.76$ (p-value $<E-7$) for the pcBB network. In relation to the MI ones, only the miGT present a high $R2$ ($0.79$, with slope = $1.95$), whereas the miBB has an $R2$ of only $0.20$ ($\text{slope} =0.24$). On the one hand, the GT networks present a sizeable connected component in the central area, close to the main rivers. On the other hand, the BB networks present a few meaningful connected components surrounding the watershed and dominating cells close to the outlet, with significant statistical differences in the altimetry distribution.