MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132417139 · doi:10.5194/hess-14-1931-2010

Experimental investigation of the predictive capabilities of data driven modeling techniques in hydrology - Part 1: Concepts and methodology

2010· article· en· W2132417139 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology and earth system sciences · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGenetic programmingComputer scienceData miningSupport vector machineEvapotranspirationSampling (signal processing)Process (computing)RegressionHydrological modellingMachine learningArtificial intelligenceStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract. A comprehensive data driven modeling experiment is presented in a two-part paper. In this first part, an extensive data-driven modeling experiment is proposed. The most important concerns regarding the way data driven modeling (DDM) techniques and data were handled, compared, and evaluated, and the basis on which findings and conclusions were drawn are discussed. A concise review of key articles that presented comparisons among various DDM techniques is presented. Six DDM techniques, namely, neural networks, genetic programming, evolutionary polynomial regression, support vector machines, M5 model trees, and K-nearest neighbors are proposed and explained. Multiple linear regression and naïve models are also suggested as baseline for comparison with the various techniques. Five datasets from Canada and Europe representing evapotranspiration, upper and lower layer soil moisture content, and rainfall-runoff process are described and proposed, in the second paper, for the modeling experiment. Twelve different realizations (groups) from each dataset are created by a procedure involving random sampling. Each group contains three subsets; training, cross-validation, and testing. Each modeling technique is proposed to be applied to each of the 12 groups of each dataset. This way, both prediction accuracy and uncertainty of the modeling techniques can be evaluated. The description of the datasets, the implementation of the modeling techniques, results and analysis, and the findings of the modeling experiment are deferred to the second part of this paper.

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)0.002
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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.211 · 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