Comparison of autoregressive moving average and state space methods for mean monthly time series modelling of river flows in Labrador and South East Quebec
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Time series data such as monthly stream flows can be modelled using time series methods and then used to simulate or forecast flows for short term planning. Short term forecasting can be applied, for example, in the hydroelectric industry to help manage reservoir levels at storage dam facilities as well as energy supply throughout the year at run of river facilities. In this study, two methods of time series modelling were reviewed and compared, the Box Jenkins autoregressive moving average (ARMA) method and the State- Space Time-Series (SSTS) method. ARMA has been used in hydrology to model and simulate flows with good results and is widely accepted for this purpose. SSTS modelling is a method that was developed in the 1990s for modelling economic time series and is relatively unused for modelling streamflow time series. The work described herein focuses on modelling stream flows from three selected basins in Labrador and South-East Quebec, the Alexis, Ugjoktok and Romaine Rivers, using these two time series modelling methods and comparing results. The ARMA and SSTS models for each study basin were compared for fit of model, accuracy of prediction, ease of use and simplicity of model to determine the preferred time series methodology approach for modelling the flows in these rivers. The performance of the methods for both the model fit as well as the forecast accuracy was measured using Nash Sutcliffe Coefficient, Median Absolute Percentage Error and Mean Squared Deviation error calculations. It was concluded that the SSTS method for these three rivers produced better fitting models than the ARMA method, but was generally equivalent in prediction accuracy to the ARMA method. The ARMA models, in contrast, were easier to diagnose and could be used to produce flow simulations, which was challenging using SSTS.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".