Comparison of autoregressive moving average and state space methods for monthly time series modelling of Labrador and South-East Quebec river flows
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time series data such as monthly stream flows can be modelled using time series methods and then used to simulate or forecast flows for short term planning. Two methods of time series modelling were reviewed and compared: the well-known auto regressive moving average (ARMA) method and the state-space time-series (SSTS) method. ARMA has been used in hydrology to model and simulate flows with good results and is widely accepted for this purpose. SSTS modelling is a more recently developed method that is relatively unused for hydrologic modelling. This paper focuses on modelling the stream flows from basins of different sizes using these two time series modelling methods and comparing the results. Three rivers in Labrador and South-East Quebec were modelled: the Romaine, Ugjoktok and Alexis Rivers. Both models were compared for accuracy of prediction, ease of software use and simplicity of model to determine the preferred time series methodology approach for modelling these rivers. The SSTS was considered very easy to use but model diagnostics were found to require a high level of statistical understanding. Ultimately, the ARMA method was determined to be the better method for the typical engineer to use, considering the diagnostics were simple and the monthly flows could be easily simulated to verify results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".