MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2090018636 · doi:10.1139/l06-111

Suspended sediment prediction using two different feed-forward back-propagation algorithms

2007· article· en· W2090018636 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Mehmet Ardıçlıoğlu, Özgür Kişi, Tefaruk Haktanır

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Civil Engineering · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSedimentMultilinear mapArtificial neural networkAlgorithmStreamflowBackpropagationUpstream (networking)Environmental scienceGradient descentHydrology (agriculture)Drainage basinComputer scienceGeologyGeotechnical engineeringArtificial intelligenceMathematicsGeomorphologyGeographyTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

IIn this paper the capability of two different feed-forward back-propagation neural network algorithms, namely Levenberg-Marquardt and gradient-descent, in solving complex nonlinear problems is utilized for suspended sediment prediction. The monthly streamflow and suspended sediment data from two stations, Palu and Çayağzi, in the Firat Basin in Turkey are used as case studies. The first part of the study involves the prediction of sediment data for the two stations. The second part of the study focuses on the prediction of the downstream station sediment data using upstream data. The effect of the periodicity on model performance is also investigated in each application.Key words: suspended sediment, neural networks, multilinear regression, prediction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.213
Teacher spread0.198 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Civil EngineeringSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207