MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2792586183 · doi:10.2166/wst.2018.107

River flood prediction using fuzzy neural networks: an investigation on automated network architecture

2018· article· en· W2792586183 on OpenAlexaffabout
Usman T. Khan, Jianxun He, Caterina Valeo

Bibliographic record

VenueWater Science & Technology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of VictoriaUniversity of CalgaryYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythData miningComputer scienceArtificial neural networkFeature selectionFuzzy logicSelection (genetic algorithm)Artificial intelligenceMachine learningGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Urban floods are one of the most devastating natural disasters globally and improved flood prediction is essential for better flood management. Today, high-resolution real-time datasets for flood-related variables are widely available. These data can be used to create data-driven models for improved real-time flood prediction. However, data-driven models have uncertainty stemming from a number of issues: the selection of input data, the optimisation of model architecture, estimation of model parameters, and model output. Addressing these sources of uncertainty will improve flood prediction. In this research, a fuzzy neural network is proposed to predict peak flow in an urban river. The network uses fuzzy numbers to account for the uncertainty in the output and model parameters. An algorithm that uses possibility theory is used to train the network. An adaptation of the automated neural pathway strength feature selection (ANPSFS) method is used to select the input features. A search and optimisation algorithm is used to select the network architecture. Data for the Bow River in Calgary, Canada are used to train and test the network.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.218 · 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
GenreMethods

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

Citations35
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWater Science & TechnologySame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207