MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1619620703 · doi:10.1029/2004wr003846

Solving a stochastic reservoir management problem with multilag autocorrelated inflows

2005· article· en· W1619620703 on OpenAlexafffund
André Turgeon

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Resources Research · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsPolytechnique Montréal
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsInflowAutocorrelationAutoregressive modelVariable (mathematics)Flood mythStochastic programmingEconometricsRandom variableMathematicsMathematical optimizationStatisticsMeteorologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are many advantages in taking account of multilag autocorrelation of inflows in a reservoir management problem: The flood and water shortage risks diminish, there are fewer spillages, and the generation of hydroplants downstream from the reservoir increases. The disadvantage is that the number of state variables in the optimization problem increases with the number of lags. This paper shows that it is possible to adequately represent the multilag autocorrelation by a single hydrologic variable, the value of which changes from day to day and is equal to the conditional mean of the daily inflow. The paper also shows how to determine the probability distribution of the hydrologic variable for one day as a function of the hydrologic variable and the inflow of the preceding day. This is done for cases where the inflows are represented by a linear autoregressive (AR) model and linear autoregressive‐moving‐average (ARMA) model. The reservoir management problem is solved with stochastic dynamic programming (SDP). Numerical results are presented.

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 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
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 score0.219
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.248
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations37
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Resources ResearchSame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207