MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Water Resources Optimization Method in the Context of Climate Change

2014· article· en· W2152649455 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Didier Haguma, Robert Leconte, Stéphane Krau, Pascal Côté, François Brissette

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Resources Planning and Management · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsRio Tinto (Canada)École de Technologie SupérieureUniversité de Sherbrooke
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsHydropowerClimate changeInflowContext (archaeology)Water resourcesStochastic programmingEnvironmental scienceMathematical optimizationStochastic optimizationTerm (time)SeasonalityComputer scienceEnvironmental resource managementMathematicsEngineeringMeteorologyGeographyEcology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This paper describes a method for water resources optimization in the context of climate change. The method takes into account the midterm variability or seasonality of inflows as well as the uncertainty in the climate change and resulting flows. The objective of the optimization algorithm is to find a compromise between the long-term planning of water resources systems and the midterm operations for optimum hydropower production. The proposed algorithm consists of the midterm dynamic programming formulation coupled with the use of the expected value of the cost-to-go function between two consecutive long-term periods. Future climate projections and transition probabilities between projections represent the stochastic nature of inflows and the nonstationarity of climate. The performance of the method was evaluated through the simulation of inflow projections for the Manicouagan River basin in Quebec, Canada. The results showed that the algorithm was able to adapt the operating policy to the climate seasonality and climate change uncertainties in the optimization problem.

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 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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.442
Threshold uncertainty score0.361

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 communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.214 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Resources Planning and ManagementSame topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207