Machine learning and hydrological sciences: A systematic overview of review papers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Water sciences have greatly contributed to the proliferation of machine learning in the twenty-first century, especially through engineering hydrology. This process has consequently necessitated transfer of core theory and knowledge of machine learning to the domain of hydrological sciences. In this regard, it is noteworthy that published academic literature played a substantial role in supporting development and learning of hydrologists. Specifically, research articles (and book sections) that review machine learning concepts and algorithms along with their applications in hydrology bolster progress of science by presenting encapsulated information (e.g, in the form of literature synthesis). Despite the rapid increase in the number and scope of such research articles, a systematic understanding of how this line of research publications has evolved with respect to their scientific context, objectives, and methods is still lacking. Hereby, we present an analysis of review papers in hydrology and machine learning based on a systematic search strategy. The overview includes analysis of bibliographic information, review types (objective, focus theme, etc.), review methodologies (narrative, systematic, etc.) as well as thematic context (hydrology subjects and machine learning topics). We believe that our analysis can provide important insights into topics and discussions in hydrology and machine learning that need further exploration by hydrologists. Furthermore, the public online library on Zotero (https://www.zotero.org/groups/4828386/machine_learning_hydrology_review_papers/library) might encourage more participation towards sustainable literature search and active reading on this subject at the intersection of two fundamental disciplines, machine learning and hydrology.
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 | 0.011 | 0.035 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.031 | 0.029 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".