MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2751199820 · doi:10.2495/sdp-v12-n8-1282-1298

Application of artificial neural networks to forecasting monthly rainfall one year in advance for locations within the Murray Darling basin, Australia

2017· article· en· W2751199820 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
J. Abbot, Jennifer Marohasy

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and Planning · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMet OfficeB. Macfie Family Foundation
KeywordsArtificial neural networkStructural basinHydrology (agriculture)MeteorologyClimatologyEnvironmental scienceGeologyArtificial intelligenceGeographyComputer scienceGeotechnical engineeringGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Much of Australia regularly experiences extremes of drought and flooding, with high variability in rainfall in many regions of the continent.Development of reliable and accurate medium-term rainfall forecasts is important, particularly for agriculture.Monthly rainfall forecasts 12 months in advance were made with artificial neural networks (ANNs), a form of artificial intelligence, for the locations of Bathurst Deniliquin, and Miles, which are agricultural hubs in the Murray Darling Basin, in southeastern Australia.Two different approaches were used for the optimisation of the ANN models.In the first, all months in each calendar year were optimised together, while in the second approach, rainfall forecasts for each month of the year were made individually.For each of the three locations for most months, higher forecast skill scores were achieved using single-month optimizations.In the case of Bathurst, however, for the months of November and December, the root mean square error (RMSE) for all-month optimisation was lower than for single-month optimisation.The best overall rainfall forecasts for each site were obtained by generating a composite of the two approaches, selecting the forecast for each month with the lowest forecast errors.Composite model skill score levels of at least 40% above that of climatology were achieved for all three locations, whereas skill level derived from forecasts using general circulation models is generally only comparable to climatology at the long-lead time of 8 months.

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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.144
Threshold uncertainty score0.286

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations22
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Sustainable Development and PlanningSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207