Assessing the suitability of extreme learning machines (ELM) for groundwater level prediction
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 Fluctuation of groundwater levels around the world is an important theme in hydrological research. Rising water demand, faulty irrigation practices, mismanagement of soil and uncontrolled exploitation of aquifers are some of the reasons why groundwater levels are fluctuating. In order to effectively manage groundwater resources, it is important to have accurate readings and forecasts of groundwater levels. Due to the uncertain and complex nature of groundwater systems, the development of soft computing techniques (data-driven models) in the field of hydrology has significant potential. This study employs two soft computing techniques, namely, extreme learning machine (ELM) and support vector machine (SVM) to forecast groundwater levels at two observation wells located in Canada. A monthly data set of eight years from 2006 to 2014 consisting of both hydrological and meteorological parameters (rainfall, temperature, evapotranspiration and groundwater level) was used for the comparative study of the models. These variables were used in various combinations for univariate and multivariate analysis of the models. The study demonstrates that the proposed ELM model has better forecasting ability compared to the SVM model for monthly groundwater level forecasting.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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