Extreme Learning Machine model for assessment of stream health using the Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The Extreme Learning Machine (ELM) approach was used to predict stream health with a Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI), and watershed metrics. A dataset of 112 sites in Ontario, Canada with their Hilsenhoff Biotic Index (HBI) and richness values was used in the development of two ELM models. Each model used 70 and 30% of the dataset for training and testing respectively. The models show a great fit with Root Mean Square Error (RMSE)=0.12 and 0.33 for HBI and richness test models, respectively. Then, features elimination based on ELM coefficients and coefficient of variation showed a slight increase in the models' RMSE to reach 0.09 and 0.33 correspondingly. Accordingly, this high predictability of the models in this research provide better insights into which factors influence HBI or richness, and suggests that ELM has a better architecture than other machine learning models and ANN to learn complex non-linear relationships. Also, sensitivity analysis expressed channel slope as the most affecting stream-health parameter for stream health.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".