MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Modeling the Time Variation of Reservoir Trap Efficiency

2010· article· en· W2029490203 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Vaibhav Garg, V. Jothiprakash

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydrologic Engineering · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersAGE-WELL
KeywordsInflowEmpirical modellingSoft computingTrap (plumbing)Genetic programmingReservoir modelingComputer scienceSedimentationReservoir computingArtificial neural networkDeposition (geology)Genetic algorithmHydrology (agriculture)Soil scienceSedimentGeologyEnvironmental sciencePetroleum engineeringMachine learningGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphologySimulationEnvironmental engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

All reservoirs are subjected to sediment inflow and deposition to a certain extent resulting in reduction of their capacity. Trap efficiency (Te), a most important parameter for reservoir sedimentation studies, is being estimated using conventional empirical methods till today. A limited research has been carried out on estimating the variation of Te with time. In the present study, an attempt has been made to incorporate the age of the reservoir to estimate the Te. This study investigates the suitability of conventional empirical approaches along with soft computing data-driven techniques to estimate the reservoir Te. The incorporation of reservoir age, in empirical model, has resulted in a better Te estimation. Further, to estimate Te at different time steps, soft computing approaches such as artificial neural networks (ANNs) and genetic programming (GP) have been attempted. Based on correlation analysis, it was found that ANN model (4–4-1) resulted better than conventional empirical methods but inferior to GP. The results show that the GP model is parsimonious and understandable and is well suited to estimate Te of a large reservoir.

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)0.003
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.205
Teacher spread0.195 · 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

Citations24
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hydrologic EngineeringSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207