MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967936067 · doi:10.1139/l09-074

Reference evapotranspiration forecasting using different artificial neural networks algorithms

2009· article· en· W1967936067 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Seema Chauhan, Rajesh Shrivastava

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkBackpropagationEvapotranspirationAlgorithmMean squared errorArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The present study aims to apply artificial neural networks (ANNs) for reference evapotranspiration (ETo) prediction. Three different feed-forward artifical neural network (ANN) models, each using varied input combinations of previous months ETo, have been trained and tested. The output of the network was the one-month-ahead ETo. The networks learned to forecast one-month-ahead ETo for Mahanadi reservoir project area using the three learning methods namely quasi-Newton algorithm, Levenberg–Marquardt algorithm and backpropagation with adaptive learning rate algorithm. The training results were compared with each other, and performance evaluations were done for untrained data. The performance evaluations measured were standard error of estimates (SEE), raw standard error of estimates (RSEE), and model efficiency. The best ANN architecture for prediction of ETo was obtained for Mahanadi reservoir project area. The monthly reference evapotranspiration data were estimated by the Penman–Monteith method and used for training and testing of the ANN models. Further ANNs predicted results were compared with those obtained using the statistical multiple regression technique. Based on results obtained, the ANN model with architecture of 3–9-1 (three, nine, and one neuron(s) in the input, hidden, and output layers, respectively) trained using quasi-Newton algorithm was found to be the best amongst all the models with minimum SEE and RSEE of 0.45 and 0.45 mm/d respectively and maximum model efficiency of 93%. It is concluded that ANN can be used to predict ETo.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.174 · 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

Citations21
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207