MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2788895239 · doi:10.3390/hydrology5010010

Comparing Machine Learning and Decision Making Approaches to Forecast Long Lead Monthly Rainfall: The City of Vancouver, Canada

2018· article· en· W2788895239 on OpenAlexaffabout
Zahra Zahmatkesh, Erfan Goharian

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicClimate variability and models
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTOPSISLead timeGeopotential heightEnvironmental scienceFlood mythMeteorologyForecast skillComputer scienceMathematicsPrecipitationOperations researchGeographyEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Estimating maximum possible rainfall is of great value for flood prediction and protection, particularly for regions, such as Canada, where urban and fluvial floods from extreme rainfalls have been known to be a major concern. In this study, a methodology is proposed to forecast real-time rainfall (with one month lead time) using different number of spatial inputs with different orders of lags. For this purpose, two types of models are used. The first one is a machine learning data driven-based model, which uses a set of hydrologic variables as inputs, and the second one is an empirical-statistical model that employs the multi-criteria decision analysis method for rainfall forecasting. The data driven model is built based on Artificial Neural Networks (ANNs), while the developed multi-criteria decision analysis model uses Technique for Order of Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution (TOPSIS) approach. A comprehensive set of spatially varying climate variables, including geopotential height, sea surface temperature, sea level pressure, humidity, temperature and pressure with different orders of lags is collected to form input vectors for the forecast models. Then, a feature selection method is employed to identify the most appropriate predictors. Two sets of results from the developed models, i.e., maximum daily rainfall in each month (RMAX) and cumulative value of rainfall for each month (RCU), are considered as the target variables for forecast purpose. The results from both modeling approaches are compared using a number of evaluation criteria such as Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE). The proposed models are applied for rainfall forecasting for a coastal area in Western Canada: Vancouver, British Columbia. Results indicate although data driven models such as ANNs work well for the simulation purpose, developed TOPSIS model considerably outperforms ANNs for the rainfall forecasting. ANNs show acceptable simulation performance during the calibration period (NSE up to 0.9) but they fail for the validation (NSE of 0.2) and forecasting (negative NSE). The TOPSIS method delivers better rainfall forecasting performance with the NSE of about 0.7. Moreover, the number of predictors that are used in the TOPSIS model are significantly less than those required by the ANNs to show an acceptable performance (7 against 47 for forecasting RCU and 6 against 32 for forecasting RMAX). Reliable and precise rainfall forecasting, with adequate lead time, benefits enhanced flood warning and decision making to reduce potential flood damages.

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)0.003
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 score0.037
Threshold uncertainty score0.133

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.178 · 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

Citations10
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHydrologySame topicClimate variability and modelsFrench-language works237,207