A Genetic Algorithm for Tributary Selection with Consideration of Multiple Factors
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Drainage systems are important components in cartography and Geographic Information Systems (GIS), and achieve different drainage patterns based on the form and texture of their network of stream channels and tributaries due to local topography and subsurface geology. The drainage pattern can reflect the geographical characteristics of a river network to a certain extent. To preserve the drainage pattern during the generalization process, this article proposes a solution to deal with many factors, such as the tributary length and the order in river tributary selection. This leads to a multi‐objective optimization problem solved with a Genetic Algorithm. In the multi‐objective model, different weights are used to aggregate all objective functions into a fitness function. The method is applied on a case study to evaluate the importance of each factor for different types of drainage and results are compared with a manually generalized network. The result can be controlled by assigning different weights to the factors. From this work, different weight settings according to drainage patterns are proposed for the river network generalization.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it