Comparison of three data-driven techniques in modelling the evapotranspiration process
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evapotranspiration is one of the main components of the hydrological cycle as it accounts for more than two-thirds of the precipitation losses at the global scale. Reliable estimates of actual evapotranspiration are crucial for effective watershed modelling and water resource management, yet direct measurements of the evapotranspiration losses are difficult and expensive. This research explores the utility and effectiveness of data-driven techniques in modelling actual evapotranspiration measured by an eddy covariance system. The authors compare the Evolutionary Polynomial Regression (EPR) performance to Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs) and Genetic Programming (GP). Furthermore, this research investigates the effect of previous states (time lags) of the meteorological input variables on characterizing actual evapotranspiration. The models developed using the EPR, based on the two case studies at the Mildred Lake mine, AB, Canada provided comparable performance to the models of GP and ANNs. Moreover, the EPR provided simpler models than those developed by the other data-driven techniques, particularly in one of the case studies. The inclusion of the previous states of the input variables slightly enhanced the performance of the developed model, which in turn indicates the dynamic nature of the evapotranspiration process.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".