MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2303183965 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.r241-16

Prediction of Water Demands in a Water Treatment Plant Using an Artificial Neural Network Model

2011· article· en· W2303183965 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Zoe Jingyu Zhu, Wei Guo, Benita MacKay, Edward A. McBean

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsArtificial neural networkCharacter (mathematics)Computer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

To provide improvements in efficiency and the ability to respond to changing external conditions, an artificial neural network (ANN) model is used to characterize the contents of reservoir(s) and water tower(s) sufficient to meet water demands.Maintaining water levels and daily treatment quantities can be effective to reduce the formation of disinfection byproducts (DBPs).Predictive models are developed to investigate the effects of maximum daily temperatures, incoming solar radiation and total daily precipitation (which influences water demands) and DBP formation at the water treatment plant.ANNs are semi-parametric regression estimators, and are well suited for predicting water demands and water quality as they can approximate virtually any function, to varying degrees of accuracy.In this application, predictions of water demand and DBPs are obtained using a simple backpropagation neural network.A comparative evaluation of the stepwise regression method and the ANN model are provided.The results show that the ANN obtains better accuracy than the regression method: it produced R 2 = 0.84 as compared to R 2 = 0.71 obtained by standard regression.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.053
Threshold uncertainty score0.105

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.164
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.097 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations1
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicWater Quality Monitoring TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207