MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050920748 · doi:10.1080/08839510802226785

ENSEMBLE ARTIFICIAL NEURAL NETWORKS FOR PREDICTION OF DEW POINT TEMPERATURE

2008· article· en· W2050920748 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel B. Shank, R. W. McClendon, Joel O. Paz, Gerrit Hoogenboom

Bibliographic record

VenueApplied Artificial Intelligence · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicAir Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
Canadian institutionsArtificial Intelligence in Medicine (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDew pointArtificial neural networkComputer scienceDewPoint (geometry)StatisticsMeteorologyMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Dew point temperature is needed as an input to calculate various meteorological variables. In general, it contributes to human and animal comfort levels. The goal of this study was to develop artificial neural network (ANN) models for dew point temperature prediction to improve upon previous research. These improvements included optimizing the stopping criteria, comparing seasonal models to year-round models, and developing ensemble ANNs to blend the output of seasonal models. For an ANN trained with 100,000 patterns per epoch, the error was reduced using a 2000-pattern stopping dataset at an interval of 20 learning events to decide when to stop training. Seasonal ANN models were blended in an ensemble ANN with the weight of the member networks determined using a fuzzy membership-type function based on the day of year. These ensemble models were shown to produce lower errors than year-round, nonensemble models. The mean absolute errors (MAEs) of the final models evaluated with an independent evaluation dataset included 0.795°C for a 2-hour prediction, 1.485°C for a 6-hour prediction, and 2.146°C for a 12-hour prediction. The final model MAEs, when compared to the previous research, were reduced by 0.008°C, 0.081°C, and 0.135°C, respectively. It can be concluded that the methods used in this research were effective in more accurately predicting year-round dew point temperature. The ANN models for different prediction periods were sequenced to provide a 12-hour dew point temperature prediction system for implementation on the Georgia Automated Environmental Monitoring Network website (www.georgiaweather.net).

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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.266
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations34
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueApplied Artificial IntelligenceSame topicAir Quality Monitoring and ForecastingFrench-language works237,207