MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1588334962

A comparison of different decision algorithms used in volumetric storm cells classification

2002· article· en· W1588334962 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zbigniew Suraj, James F. Peters, Wojciech Rząsa

Bibliographic record

VenueFundamenta Informaticae · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSupport vector machineComputer scienceRadarAlgorithmRough setData setStatistical classificationStormDecision tableData miningDecision support systemArtificial intelligenceMachine learningDecision ruleSet (abstract data type)Training setDatabaseMeteorologyGeography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decision algorithms useful in classifying meteorological volumetric radar data are the subject of described in the paper experiments. Such data come from the Radar Decision Support System (RDSS) database of Environment Canada and concern summer storms created in this country. Some research groups used the data completed by RDSS for verifying the utility of chosen methods in volumetric storm cells classification. The paper consists of a review of experiments that were made on the data from RDSS database of Environment Canada and presents the quality of particular classifiers. The classification accuracy coefficient is used to express the quality. For five research groups that led their experiments in a similar way it was possible to compare receiced outputs. Experiments showed that the support Vector Machine (SVM) method and rough set algorithms which use objects oriented reducts ro rule for rule generation to classify volumetric strom data perform better than other classifiers.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.021
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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.044

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.021
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.080
GPT teacher head0.301
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

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

Citations6
Published2002
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFundamenta InformaticaeSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207