MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2064720685 · doi:10.1111/jawr.12259

Development and Operational Testing of a Super‐Ensemble Artificial Intelligence Flood‐Forecast Model for a Pacific Northwest River

2014· article· en· W2064720685 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sean W. Fleming, Dominique R. Bourdin, Dave Campbell, Roland B. Stull, Tobi Gardner

Bibliographic record

VenueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsMinistry of ForestsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood forecastingFlood mythSnowmeltEnvironmental scienceMeteorologyStormStreamflowProbabilistic logicClimatologyHydrological modellingEnsemble forecastingComputer scienceGeographyGeologyDrainage basinSnowArtificial intelligenceCartography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Coastal catchments in British Columbia, Canada, experience a complex mixture of rainfall‐ and snowmelt‐driven contributions to flood events. Few operational flood‐forecast models are available in the region. Here, we integrated a number of proven technologies in a novel way to produce a super‐ensemble forecast system for the Englishman River, a flood‐prone stream on Vancouver Island. This three‐day‐ahead modeling system utilizes up to 42 numerical weather prediction model outputs from the North American Ensemble Forecast System, combined with six artificial neural network‐based streamflow models representing various slightly different system conceptualizations, all of which were trained exclusively on historical high‐flow data. As such, the system combines relatively low model development times and costs with the generation of fully probabilistic forecasts reflecting uncertainty in the simulation of both atmospheric and terrestrial hydrologic dynamics. Results from operational testing by British Columbia's flood forecasting agency during the 2013‐2014 storm season suggest that the prediction system is operationally useful and robust.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.495
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.219
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations49
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources AssociationSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207