MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366281264 · doi:10.3390/hydrology10040095

A Machine-Learning Framework for Modeling and Predicting Monthly Streamflow Time Series

2023· article· en· W4366281264 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueHydrology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStreamflowRegressionRandom forestComputer scienceBoosting (machine learning)Model selectionGradient boostingAdaBoostTime seriesMachine learningCalibrationEnsemble learningRegression analysisDecision treeArtificial intelligenceEnsemble forecastingPredictive modellingData miningStatisticsMathematicsGeographySupport vector machine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Having a complete hydrological time series is crucial for water-resources management and modeling. However, this can pose a challenge in data-scarce environments where data gaps are widespread. In such situations, recurring data gaps can lead to unfavorable outcomes such as loss of critical information, ineffective model calibration, inaccurate timing of peak flows, and biased statistical analysis in various applications. Despite its importance, predicting monthly streamflow can be a complex task due to its connection to random dynamics and uncertain phenomena, posing significant challenges. This study introduces an ensemble machine-learning regression framework for modeling and predicting monthly streamflow time series with a high degree of accuracy. The framework utilizes historical data from multiple monthly streamflow datasets in the same region to predict missing monthly streamflow data. The framework selects the best features from all available gap-free monthly streamflow time-series combinations and identifies the optimal model from a pool of 12 machine-learning models, including random forest regression, gradient boosting regression, and extra trees regressor, among others. The model selection is based on cross-validation train-and-test set scores, as well as the coefficient of determination. We conducted modeling on 26 monthly streamflow time series and found that the gradient boosting regressor with bagging regressor produced the highest accuracy in 7 of the 26 instances. Across all instances, the models using this method exhibited an overall accuracy range of 0.9737 to 0.9968. Additionally, the use of either a bagging regressor or an AdaBoost regressor improved both the tree-based and gradient-based models, resulting in these methods accounting for nearly 80% of the best models. Between January 1960 and December 2021, an average of 40% of the monthly streamflow data was missing for each of the 26 stations. Notably, two crucial stations located in the economically significant lower Athabasca Basin River in Alberta province, Canada, had approximately 70% of their monthly streamflow data missing. To address this issue, we employed our framework to accurately extend the missing data for all 26 stations. These accurate extensions also allow for further analysis, including grouping stations with similar monthly streamflow behavior using Pearson correlation.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.232
Threshold uncertainty score0.450

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.222
Teacher spread0.212 · 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