MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1554506217 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r207-09

Water Quality Management using a Fuzzy Inference System

2001· article· en· W1554506217 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFuzzy inference systemFuzzy inferenceInferenceAdaptive neuro fuzzy inference systemWater qualityFuzzy logicQuality (philosophy)Computer scienceFuzzy control systemPetroleum engineeringEnvironmental scienceEngineeringArtificial intelligenceEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A fuzzy inference system (FIS) is presented for the optimal operation of a reservoir system with the objective of maintaining water quality in a creek. An optimization model determines optimal reservoir releases for given inflows, initial storage volume and required values for flow augmentation. These optimal releases are then used as inputs to derive optimal operating policies that are easy to use. FIS uses samples of optimal releases and corresponding system variables, namely inflows and storage volumes, to establish the general operating policies. Results compare the superior performance of the proposed algorithm with policies developed using a multiple regression analysis.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.300
Threshold uncertainty score0.663

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.083
GPT teacher head0.304
Teacher spread0.221 · 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