MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088925649 · doi:10.1623/hysj.53.3.640

Comparison of non-parametric and parametric water temperature models on the Nivelle River, France

2008· article· en· W2088925649 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrological Sciences Journal · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFish Ecology and Management Studies
Canadian institutionsInstitut National de la Recherche ScientifiqueDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStreamflowAutoregressive modelMathematicsParametric statisticsEnvironmental scienceStatisticsHydrology (agriculture)GeographyCartographyGeologyDrainage basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

La température de l'eau est une variable très importante pour les études d'habitat aquatique. Elle peut être un facteur limitant pour plusieurs espèces de poisson, telles que les salmonidés. Cet article présente une modélisation statistique de la température de l'eau en utilisant la température de l'air et le débit comme variables explicatives. Les données utilisées dans la modélisation numérique sont les températures hebdomadaires de la rivière Nivelle (France). Deux modèles de température de l'eau sont alors proposés et comparés, soit la méthode non-paramétrique des <i>k</i> plus proches voisins (VPP) et le modèle périodique autorégressif avec variables exogènes (PARX). La méthode des VPP consiste à chercher dans tout l'historique, les <i>k</i> plus proches voisins qui serviront à estimer la température actuelle. Le modèle PARX est un modèle autorégressif dont les paramètres de chaque variable explicative sont estimés indépendamment pour chaque période de l'année. Plusieurs attributs de température de l'eau et du débit sont considérés. La performance des modèles a été évaluée pour chaque année en utilisant une technique de validation croisée de type “jack-knife”. Les résultats préliminaires ont montré que le modèle PARX et le modèle VPP présentent une performance similaire dans la simulation des températures hebdomadaires. Toutefois, le modèle PARX demeure le plus approprié, car il préserve la persistance des séries périodiques et il offre une équation explicitant la relation entre la température de l'eau et les variables explicatives.
\n
\n<h2>Abstraxt</h2>
\nWater temperature is an important abiotic variable in aquatic habitat studies and may be one of the factors limiting the potential fish habitat (e.g. salmonids) in a stream. Stream water temperatures are modelled using statistical approaches with air temperature and streamflow as exogenous variables in the Nivelle River, southern France. Two different models are used to model mean weekly maximum temperature data: a non-parametric approach, the <i>k</i>-nearest neighbours method (<i>k</i>-NN) and a parametric approach, the periodic autoregressive model with exogenous variables (PARX). The <i>k</i>-NN is a data-driven method, which consists of finding, at each point of interest, a small number of neighbours nearest to this value, and the prediction is estimated based on these neighbours. The PARX model is an extension of commonly-used autoregressive models in which parameters are estimated for each period within the years. Different variants of air temperature and flow are used in the model development. In order to test the performance of these models, a jack-knife technique is used, whereby model goodness of fit is assessed separately for each year. The results indicate that both models give good performances, but the PARX model should be preferred, because of its good estimation of the individual weekly temperatures and its ability to explicitly predict water temperature using exogenous variables.

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 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 categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.050
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.223 · 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