Stream temperature modelling using artificial neural networks: application on Catamaran Brook, New Brunswick, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Fish habitat and aquatic life in rivers are highly dependent on water temperature. Therefore, it is important to understand andto be able to predict river water temperatures using models. Such models can increase our knowledge of river thermal regimes as well as provide tools for environmental impact assessments. In this study, artificial neural networks (ANNs) will be used to develop models for predicting both the mean and maximum daily water temperature. The study was conducted within Catamaran Brook, a small drainage basin tributary to the Miramichi River (New Brunswick, Canada). In total, eight ANN models were investigated using a variety of input parameters. Of these models, four predicted mean daily water temperature and four predicted maximum daily water temperature. The best model for mean daily temperature had eight input parameters: minimum, maximum and mean air temperatures of the current day and those of the preceding day, the day of year and the water level. This model had an overall root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) of 0·96 °C, a bias of 0·26 °C and a coefficient of determination R2 = 0·971. The model that best predicted maximum daily water temperature was similar to the first model but excluded mean daily air temperature. Good results were obtained for maximum water temperatures with an overall RMSE of 1·18 °C, a bias of 0·15 °C and R2 = 0·961. The results of ANN models were similar to and/or better than those observed from the literature. The advantages of artificial neural networks models in modelling river water temperature lie in their simplicity of use, their low data requirement and their good performance, as well as their flexibility in allowing many input and output parameters. Copyright © 2008 Crown in the right of Canada and John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".