MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2999410629 · doi:10.3390/w12010220

Modeling River Ice Breakup Dates by k-Nearest Neighbor Ensemble

2020· article· en· W2999410629 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Wei Sun, Ying Lv, Gongchen Li, Yumin Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Regina
FundersSun Yat-sen UniversityAlberta Environment and Parks
KeywordsBreakupMahalanobis distancek-nearest neighbors algorithmEnsemble forecastingCross-validationComputer scienceMeteorologyData miningArtificial intelligenceGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.766
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

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)0.0020.002

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.187
Teacher spread0.173 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations22
Published2020
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicArctic and Antarctic ice dynamicsFrench-language works237,207