Fuzzy Nonlinear Regression Approach to Stage-Discharge Analyses: Case Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
River discharge is typically derived from a single valued stage-discharge relationship. However, the relationship is affected by different sources of uncertainty, especially, in the measurement of discharge and stage values. The measurement uncertainty propagates into stage-discharge relationship curve and affects the discharge values derived from the relation. A fuzzy set theory based methodology is investigated in this paper for the analysis of uncertainty in the stage-discharge relationship. Individual components of stage and discharge measurement are considered as a fuzzy numbers and the overall stage and discharge uncertainty is obtained through the aggregation of all uncertainties using fuzzy arithmetic. Building on the previous work—fuzzy discharge and stage measurements, we use fuzzy nonlinear regression—in this case study for the analysis of uncertainty in the stage-discharge relationship. The methodology is based on fuzzy extension principle and considers input and output variables as well as the coefficients of the stage-discharge relationship as fuzzy numbers. Two different criteria are used for the evaluation of output fuzziness: (1) minimum spread and (2) least absolute deviation criteria. The results of the fuzzy regression analysis lead to a definition of lower and upper uncertainty bounds of the stage-discharge relationship and representation of discharge value as a fuzzy number. The methodology developed in this work is illustrated with a case study of Thompson River near Spences Bridge in British Columbia, Canada.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".