Integrated ANN model for earthfill dams seepage analysis: Sattarkhan Dam in Iran
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Piezometric heads in the core of Sattarkhan earthfill dam in Iran have been analyzed in this paper via Artificial Neural Network (ANN). Single and integrated ANN models were trained and verified using each piezometer’s data, and also the water levels on the up and downstream of the dam. Therefore, in the single ANN modeling a single ANN was developed for each piezometer, whereas in the integrated ANN modeling only a unique ANN was trained for all piezometers at different cross sections of the dam. Three-layered Perceptron ANN trained with Back Propagation Levenberg-Marquardt scheme was employed in the single modeling; while, two different ANN algorithms, the feed-forward back-propagation (FFBP) and the radial basis function (RBF) were employed to develop integrated ANNs. The number of hidden neurons were determined 5 and 7 for single ANNs, whereas 6 hidden neurons for the integrated FFBP ANN, and the spread value of 0.5 for the integrated RBF. The results show good agreement between computed and observed water heads at different monitoring piezometers with validation determination coefficients higher than 0.7984 in the single and 0.87 and 0.67 in the FFBP and RBF integrated modeling, respectively. Thereafter, the results of the ANNs were satisfactorily compared with the results of a physically based model (Finite Element Model, FEM).
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".