Modeling River Ice Breakup Dates by k-Nearest Neighbor Ensemble
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Forecasting of river ice breakup timing is directly related to the local ice-caused flooding management. However, river ice forecasting using k-nearest neighbor (kNN) algorithms is limited. Thus, a kNN stacking ensemble learning (KSEL) method was developed and applied to forecasting breakup dates (BDs) for the Athabasca River at Fort McMurray in Canada. The kNN base models with diverse inputs and distance functions were developed and their outputs were further combined. The performance of these models was examined using the leave-one-out cross validation method based on the historical BDs and corresponding climate and river conditions in 1980–2015. The results indicated that the kNN with the Chebychev distance functions generally outperformed other kNN base models. Through the simple average methods, the ensemble kNN models using multiple-type (Mahalanobis and Chebychev) distance functions had the overall optimal performance among all models. The improved performance indicates that the kNN ensemble is a promising tool for river ice forecasting. The structure of optimal models also implies that the breakup timing is mainly linked with temperature and water flow conditions before breakup as well as during and just after freeze up.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".