Predicting river water temperatures using stochastic models: case study of the Moisie River (Québec, Canada)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Successful applications of stochastic models for simulating and predicting daily stream temperature have been reported in the literature. These stochastic models have been generally tested on small rivers and have used only air temperature as an exogenous variable. This study investigates the stochastic modelling of daily mean stream water temperatures on the Moisie River, a relatively large unregulated river located in Québec, Canada. The objective of the study is to compare different stochastic approaches previously used on small streams to relate mean daily water temperatures to air temperatures and streamflow indices. Various stochastic approaches are used to model the water temperature residuals, representing short‐term variations, which were obtained by subtracting the seasonal components from water temperature time‐series. The first three models, a multiple regression, a second‐order autoregressive model, and a Box and Jenkins model, used only lagged air temperature residuals as exogenous variables. The root‐mean‐square error (RMSE) for these models varied between 0·53 and 1·70 °C and the second‐order autoregressive model provided the best results. A statistical methodology using best subsets regression is proposed to model the combined effect of discharge and air temperature on stream temperatures. Various streamflow indices were considered as additional independent variables, and models with different number of variables were tested. The results indicated that the best model included relative change in flow as the most important streamflow index. The RMSE for this model was of the order of 0·51 °C, which shows a small improvement over the first three models that did not include streamflow indices. The ridge regression was applied to this model to alleviate the potential statistical inadequacies associated with multicollinearity. The amplitude and sign of the ridge regression coefficients seem to be more in agreement with prior expectations (e.g. positive correlation between water temperature residuals of different lags) and make more physical sense. Copyright © 2006 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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".