MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2612945519

Snow Water Equivalent Estimation Using Blackbox Optimization

2011· article· en· W2612945519 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Charles Audet, Sébastien Le Digabel, Vincent Garnier, Stéphane Alarie, Louis‐Alexandre Leclaire

Bibliographic record

VenueLes Cahiers du GERAD · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicCryospheric studies and observations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsKrigingInterpolation (computer graphics)Computer scienceSet (abstract data type)SnowMathematical optimizationAlgorithmData miningMachine learningMathematicsArtificial intelligenceMeteorology
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Accurate measurements of snow water equivalent (SWE) is an important factor in managing water resources for hydroelectric power generation. SWE over a catchment area may be estimated via kriging on measures obtained by snow monitoring devices positioned at strategic locations. The question studied in this paper is to find the device locations that minimize the kriging interpolation error of the SWE. This is done first by formulating a simulator blackbox that takes a set of locations as inputs and returns the interpolation error, and then to minimize this error using the mesh adaptive direct search (MADS) algorithm designed for blackbox optimization. The fact that the optimization variables represent planar coordinates is used to devise algorithmic strategies that dynamically groups subsets of variables. The methodology is applied to three water-resource systems in the province of Quebec on the blackbox simulator and on a surrogate with various grouping strategies.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.209
Teacher spread0.169 · 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

Citations9
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLes Cahiers du GERADSame topicCryospheric studies and observationsFrench-language works237,207