MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2286763806 · doi:10.22069/ijerr.2013.1685

Optimization of Agricultural BMPs Using a Parallel Computing Based Multi-Objective Optimization Algorithm

2013· article· en· W2286763806 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yongbo Liu, Hailiang Shen, Wanhong Yang, Jing Yang

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicWater resources management and optimization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSoil and Water Assessment ToolWatershedComputer scienceMathematical optimizationMulti-objective optimizationGenetic algorithmComputationPareto principleAgricultureWater qualityAlgorithmMathematicsMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Beneficial Management Practices (BMPs) are important measures for reducing agricultural non-point source (NPS) pollution. However, selection of BMPs for placement in a watershed requires optimizing available resources to maximize possible water quality benefits. Due to its iterative nature, the optimization typically takes a long time to achieve the BMP trade-off results which is not desirable in practice. In this study, an optimization model, consisting of a multi-objective genetic algorithm, ε-NSGA-II, in combination with the Soil Water and Assessment Tool (SWAT) and the parallel computation technique, is developed and tested in the Fairchild Creek watershed in southern Ontario of Canada. The two objectives are to minimize BMPs costs and maximize total phosphorous load reduction. The parallel computation allows the run of multiple SWAT models simultaneously and can reduce the ε-NSGA-II optimization time significantly to achieve the objective. The Pareto-optimal fronts generated between the two objective functions can be used to achieve desired water quality goals with minimum BMP implementation cost to support spatial watershed management and policy making.

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)0.000
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: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.221
Threshold uncertainty score0.600

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.186 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations15
Published2013
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicWater resources management and optimizationFrench-language works237,207