MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889317727 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2018.2862640

Applying Upstream Satellite Signals and a 2-D Error Minimization Algorithm to Advance Early Warning and Management of Flood Water Levels and River Discharge

2018· article· en· W2889317727 on OpenAlexaff
Amir Hossein Zaji, Hossein Bonakdari, Bahram Gharabaghi

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicFlood Risk Assessment and Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceAlgorithmDischargeRemote sensingArtificial intelligenceData miningGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Recent studies demonstrate the power of applying satellite imagery in combination with artificial intelligence (AI) methods to advance the accuracy of forecasting ungauged river network water levels and discharge for early flood warning and management. In predicting river water levels and discharge time series, one of the most common sources of error with AI forecasting algorithms is the input imitation defect. When the input imitation defect occurs, regression methods simply present the input variables as output. In this paper, the input imitation defect is minimized by first introducing the two concepts of vertical error and horizontal error. Subsequently, upstream imagery information is combined with previous lags to propose a new procedure for predicting future satellite signals accurately and with the lowest possible input imitation defect. To accomplish this, the brightness temperature received by the Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer is used as a proxy of river discharge. The proposed method (PM) is finally compared with the simple linear regression and three well-known AI methods, i.e., multilayer perceptron, extreme learning machines, and radial basis function. The study outcome indicates that the PM results are more trustworthy and realistic.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.983
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.246
Teacher spread0.234 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations33
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicFlood Risk Assessment and ManagementFrench-language works237,207