Comparative Studies in Problems of Missing Extreme Daily Streamflow Records
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study evaluates the performance of different estimation techniques for the infilling of missing observations in extreme daily hydrologic series. Generalized regression neural networks (GRNNs) are proposed for the estimation of missing observations with their input configuration determined through an optimization approach of genetic algorithm (GA). The efficacy of the GRNN-GA technique was obtained through comparative performance analyses of the proposed technique to existing techniques. Based on the results of such comparative analyses, especially in the case of the English River (Canada), the GRNN-GA technique was found to be a highly competitive method when compared to the existing artificial neural networks techniques. In addition, based on the criteria of mean squared and absolute errors, a detailed comparative analysis involving the GRNN-GA, k-nearest neighbors, and multiple imputation for the infilling of missing records of the Saugeen River (Canada), also found the GRNN-GA technique to be superior when evaluated against other competing techniques.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it