MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2124875591 · doi:10.2166/hydro.2009.032

Investigating the capabilities of evolutionary data-driven techniques using the challenging estimation of soil moisture content

2009· article· en· W2124875591 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.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hydroinformatics · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicEvolutionary Algorithms and Applications
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsWater contentEnvironmental scienceGenetic programmingLagSoil scienceMoistureComputer scienceMeteorologyMachine learningEngineeringGeotechnical engineeringGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Soil moisture has a crucial role in both the global energy and hydrological cycles; it affects different ecosystem processes. Spatial and temporal variability of soil moisture add to its complex behaviour, which undermines the reliability of most current measurement methods. In this paper, two promising evolutionary data-driven techniques, namely (i) Evolutionary Polynomial Regression and (ii) Genetic Programming, are challenged with modelling the soil moisture response to the near surface atmospheric conditions. The utility of the proposed models is demonstrated through the prediction of the soil moisture response of three experimental soil covers, used for the restoration of watersheds that were disturbed by the mining industry. The results showed that the storage effect of the soil moisture response is the major challenging factor; it can be quantified using cumulative inputs better than time-lag inputs, which can be attributed to the effect of the soil layer moisture-holding capacity. This effect increases with the increase in the soil layer thickness. Three different modelling tools are tested to investigate the tool effect in data-driven modelling. Despite the promising results with regard to the prediction accuracy, the study demonstrates the need for adopting multiple data-driven modelling techniques and tools (modelling environments) to obtain reliable predictions.

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 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 score0.423
Threshold uncertainty score0.202

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.282
Teacher spread0.231 · 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