Comparison of wavelet-based hybrid models for the estimation of daily reference evapotranspiration in different climates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reference evapotranspiration (ETo) is one of the most important factors in the hydrologic cycle and water balance studies. In this study, the performance of three simple and three wavelet hybrid models were compared to estimate ETo in three different climates in Iran, based on different combinations of input variables. It was found that the wavelet-artificial neural network was the best model, and multiple linear regression (MLR) was the worst model in most cases, although the performance of the models was related to the climate and the input variables used for modeling. Overall, it was found that all models had good accuracy in terms of estimating daily ETo. Also, it was found in this study that large numbers of decomposition levels via the wavelet transform had noticeable negative effects on the performance of the wavelet-based models, especially for the wavelet-adaptive network-based fuzzy inference system and wavelet-MLR, but in contrast, the type of db wavelet function did not have a detectable effect on the performance of the wavelet-based models.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".