MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4210865533 · doi:10.1080/19942060.2022.2027273

Deep learning versus gradient boosting machine for pan evaporation prediction

2022· article· en· W4210865533 on OpenAlexaff
Anurag Malik, Mandeep Kaur Saggi, Sufia Rehman, Haroon Sajjad, Samed İnyurt, Amandeep Singh Bhatia, Aitazaz A. Farooque, Atheer Y. Oudah, Zaher Mundher Yaseen‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬‬

Bibliographic record

VenueEngineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMeteorological Phenomena and Simulations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Prince Edward Island
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPan evaporationGradient boostingUnivariateBoosting (machine learning)AridMachine learningDeep learningMeteorologyEnvironmental scienceArtificial intelligenceEvaporationComputer scienceRandom forestGeographyMultivariate statisticsEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In the present study, two innovative techniques namely, Deep Learning (DL) and Gradient boosting Machine (GBM) models are developed based on a maximum air temperature ‘univariate modeling scheme’ for modeling the monthly pan evaporation (Epan) process. Monthly air temperature and pan evaporation are used to build the predictive models. These models are used for evaluating the evaporation prediction for the Kiashahr meteorological station located in the north of Iran and Ranichauri station positioned in Uttarakhand State of India. Findings indicated that the deep learning model was found best at Kiashahr station for testing datasets MAE (0.5691, mm/month), RMSE (0.7111, mm/month), NSE (0.7496), and IOA (0.9413). It can be concluded that in the semi-arid climate of Iran both of the used methods had the good capability in modeling of monthly Epan. However, DL predicted monthly Epan better than GBM. Moreover, the highest accuracy of the deep learning model was also observed for the Ranichauri station in terms of MAE = 0.3693 mm/month, RMSE = 0.4357 mm/month, NSE = 0.8344, & IOA = 0.9507 in testing stage. Overall, results expose the superior performance of DL-based models for both study stations and can also be utilized for various other environmental modeling.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.214
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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations102
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEngineering Applications of Computational Fluid MechanicsSame topicMeteorological Phenomena and SimulationsFrench-language works237,207