MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2393170704 · doi:10.1515/jwld-2016-0004

Water demand forecasting using extreme learning machines

2016· article· en· W2393170704 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Land Development · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsExtreme learning machineArtificial neural networkTransformation (genetics)WaveletMachine learningArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract The capacity of recently-developed extreme learning machine (ELM) modelling approaches in forecasting daily urban water demand from limited data, alone or in concert with wavelet analysis (W) or bootstrap (B) methods ( i.e. , ELM, ELM W , ELM B ), was assessed, and compared to that of equivalent traditional artificial neural network-based models ( i.e ., ANN, ANN W , ANN B ). The urban water demand forecasting models were developed using 3-year water demand and climate datasets for the city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada. While the hybrid ELM B and ANN B models provided satisfactory 1-day lead-time forecasts of similar accuracy, the ANN W and ELM W models provided greater accuracy, with the ELM W model outperforming the ANN W model. Significant improvement in peak urban water demand prediction was only achieved with the ELM W model. The superiority of the ELM W model over both the ANN W or ANN B models demonstrated the significant role of wavelet transformation in improving the overall performance of the urban water demand model.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.560
Threshold uncertainty score0.617

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.181 · 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