MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1972978561 · doi:10.1139/s06-008

Artificial neural networks and time series modelling of TP concentration in boreal streams: a comparative approach

2006· article· en· W1972978561 on OpenAlexfundvenueaboutno aff
Mohamed H. Nour, Daniel W. Smith, Mohamed Gamal El‐Din, Ellie E. Prepas

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Engineering and Science · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of Alberta
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceWatershedTaigaBorealSTREAMSHydrology (agriculture)NutrientSnowBiomass (ecology)EcologyAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyComputer scienceBiologyMachine learningGeologyGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Increased nutrient concentrations in fresh waters may lead to depressed dissolved oxygen concentrations, increased cyanobacterial biomass, and potentially high levels of cyanobacterial toxin production. Phosphorus loading, during snow melt and storm events, is the main source of nutrient enrichment to water bodies on the Canadian Boreal Plain. This study compared two approaches for modelling total phosphorus (TP) concentration: autoregressive moving average with exogenous input (ARMAX) and artificial neural network (ANN) models. Derived models were applied to a small forested watershed on the Canadian Boreal Plain. Results showed that ANN outperformed ARMAX based on four measures of goodness-of-fit statistics. This study confirmed that the ANN modelling approach is superior to ARMAX in modelling time-correlated gapped data, provided step-by-step guidelines for modelling time-correlated variables, and presented a feasible alternative for modelling diffuse pollutants in small forested watersheds. Key words: watershed, snow melt, diffuse pollutants, phosphorus, artificial neural networks (ANN), time series (TS), multi-slab hidden layer, ARMAX, boreal forest.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.264

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.179
Teacher spread0.170 · 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.

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

Citations9
Published2006
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Environmental Engineering and ScienceSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207