MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1960909337 · doi:10.1139/s08-041

Modelling nitrogen composition in streams on the Boreal Plain using genetic adaptive general regression neural networks

2008· article· en· W1960909337 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Xiangfei Li, Mohamed H. Nour, Daniel W. Smith, Ellie E. Prepas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsLakehead UniversityAlberta Health ServicesCanadian Natural ResourcesUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedSTREAMSEnvironmental scienceArtificial neural networkHydrology (agriculture)RegressionWater qualityMean squared errorComputer scienceEcologyMachine learningStatisticsMathematicsEngineeringBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased release of nitrogen to hydrological networks due to watershed disturbance may cause aquatic problems and affect water uses. Therefore, effective nitrogen modelling is an important element of total watershed management. The objective of this study was to develop an artificial neural network modelling tool to predict nitrogen concentrations in streams using easily accessible data as model inputs. Genetic adaptive general regression neural network (GA-GRNN) models were applied to predict nitrate, ammonium, and total dissolved nitrogen concentrations in three forested watersheds in Alberta, Canada. The performance and generality of the developed models for dry and wet weather conditions in the studied watersheds were verified by the coefficient of multiple determination, the root mean squared error, swapping the testing and validation data sets, and plotting measured and predicted values over time. The successful application of GA-GRNN models to predict nitrogen compositions in the watersheds by using five major input variables and relevant time-lagged inputs, fully demonstrated the models’ generality. It implies the high potential of applying GA-GRNN models for predicting other surface water quality parameters on other watersheds with similar or different characteristics.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.169
Threshold uncertainty score0.337

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.200
Teacher spread0.179 · 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

Citations7
Published2008
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207