MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2010957016 · doi:10.2166/wqrjc.2014.007

Modeling of hourly river water temperatures using artificial neural networks

2014· article· en· W2010957016 on OpenAlexafffund
Cindie Hébert, Daniel Caissie, Mysore G. Satish, Nassir El‐Jabi

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Quality Research Journal · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MonctonFisheries and Oceans CanadaDalhousie University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsEnvironmental scienceWater qualityMean squared errorArtificial neural networkHydrology (agriculture)Water levelWater resourcesCurrent (fluid)MeteorologyStatisticsEcologyMathematicsComputer scienceGeologyMachine learningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water temperature is an important component for water quality and biotic conditions in rivers. A good knowledge of river thermal regime is critical for the management of aquatic resources and environmental impact studies. The objective of the present study was to develop a water temperature model as a function of air temperatures, water temperatures and water level data using artificial neural network (ANN) techniques for two thermally different streams. This model was applied on an hourly basis. The results showed that ANN models are an effective modeling tool with overall root-mean-square-error of 0.94 and 1.23 °C, coefficient of determination (R2) of 0.967 and 0.962 and bias of −0.13 and 0.02 °C, for Catamaran Brook and the Little Southwest Miramichi River, respectively. The ANN model performed best in summer and autumn and showed a poorer performance in spring. Results of the present study showed similar or better results to those of deterministic and stochastic models. The present study shows that the predicted hourly water temperatures can also be used to estimate the mean and maximum daily water temperatures. The many advantages of ANN models are their simplicity, low data requirements, their capability of modeling long-term time series as well as having an overall good performance.

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 score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.033

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.196
GPT teacher head0.389
Teacher spread0.194 · 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

Citations17
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Quality Research JournalSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207