MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2986218094 · doi:10.2166/wcc.2019.321

Flood prediction based on weather parameters using deep learning

2019· article· en· W2986218094 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water and Climate Change · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFlood mythSupport vector machineArtificial intelligenceMachine learningArtificial neural networkFlood forecastingComputer scienceDeep learningMeteorologyInternet of ThingsEnvironmental scienceGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Today, India is one of the worst flood-affected countries in the world, with the recent disaster in Kerala in August 2018 being a prime example. A good amount of work has been carried out by employing Internet of Things (IoT) and machine learning (ML) techniques in the past for flood occurrence based on rainfall, humidity, temperature, water flow, water level etc. However, the challenge is that no one has attempted the possibility of occurrence of flood based on temperature and rainfall intensity. So accordingly Deep Neural Network has been employed for predicting the occurrence of flood based on temperature and rainfall intensity. In addition, a deep learning model is compared with other machine learning models (support vector machine (SVM), K-nearest neighbor (KNN) and Naïve Bayes) in terms of accuracy and error. The results indicate that the deep neural network can be efficiently used for flood forecasting with highest accuracy based on monsoon parameters only before flood occurrence.

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.690
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

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)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.199 · 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