MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4319996243 · doi:10.1109/access.2023.3237982

Climate Indices Impact in Monthly Streamflow Series Forecasting

2023· article· en· W4319996243 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
José Fernando De Toledo, Hugo Valadares Siqueira, Lucas Henrique Biuk, Rodrigo Sacchi, Rodrigo Da Rosa Azambuja, Roberto Asano, Patrícia Teixeira Leite Asano

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Access · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFundação AraucáriaConselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e TecnológicoCoordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível SuperiorFundacion Araucaria
KeywordsStreamflowClimatologySeries (stratigraphy)Environmental scienceTime seriesMeteorologyClimate changeComputer scienceGeologyGeographyDrainage basinOceanographyMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hydroelectricity has been widely deployed in many countries for decades, and remains the main source of electricity in Canada, Norway, and Brazil. Despite the recent diversification, hydroelectricity accounts for approximately 65% of the electricity generated in Brazil. It also represents the largest non-polluting source in the country, and is important for complying with the global goals of reducing carbon emissions. Meeting energy and environmental sustainability requirements impose challenges on the hydroelectric sector in terms of resilience to climate change observed around the planet. These changes affect electricity generation by altering seasonality and increasing the variability of streamflow and evaporation losses in reservoirs. Therefore, in this study, among a set of 27 climate indices, we identified the most relevant for improving the performance of the models applied to monthly seasonal streamflow series forecasting. A database provided by the NOAA Physical Sciences Laboratory was used as exogenous variables for three machine learning models (support vector regression, extreme learning machine, and kernel ridge regression) and one linear model (seasonal autoregressive integrated moving average with exogenous factors, SARIMAX). Random forest with recursive feature elimination was used as the feature-selection technique. The results obtained allowed for the identification of the most relevant set of indices for the analyzed plants, thereby improving streamflow predictions.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
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 head0.300
Teacher spread0.263 · 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

Citations8
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE AccessSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207