MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4362559509 · doi:10.3390/su15076160

A Contemporary Review on Deep Learning Models for Drought Prediction

2023· review· en· W4362559509 on OpenAlexaff
Amogh Gyaneshwar, Anirudh Mishra, Utkarsh Chadha, P. M. Durai Raj Vincent, V. Rajinikanth, Ganapathy Pattukandan Ganapathy, Kathiravan Srinivasan

Bibliographic record

VenueSustainability · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Drought Analysis
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDeep learningArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceMachine learningField (mathematics)Artificial neural networkConvolutional neural networkPerceptronPredictive modellingData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Deep learning models have been widely used in various applications, such as image and speech recognition, natural language processing, and recently, in the field of drought forecasting/prediction. These models have proven to be effective in handling large and complex datasets, and in automatically extracting relevant features for forecasting. The use of deep learning models in drought forecasting can provide more accurate and timely predictions, which are crucial for the mitigation of drought-related impacts such as crop failure, water shortages, and economic losses. This review provides information on the type of droughts and their information systems. A comparative analysis of deep learning models, related technology, and research tabulation is provided. The review has identified algorithms that are more pertinent than others in the current scenario, such as the Deep Neural Network, Multi-Layer Perceptron, Convolutional Neural Networks, and combination of hybrid models. The paper also discusses the common issues for deep learning models for drought forecasting and the current open challenges. In conclusion, deep learning models offer a powerful tool for drought forecasting, which can significantly improve our understanding of drought dynamics and our ability to predict and mitigate its impacts. However, it is important to note that the success of these models is highly dependent on the availability and quality of data, as well as the specific characteristics of the drought event.

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)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.002

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.275 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations72
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSustainabilitySame topicHydrology and Drought AnalysisFrench-language works237,207