Modeling Hydrodynamic Behavior of the Ottawa River: Harnessing the Power of Numerical Simulation and Machine Learning for Enhanced Predictability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Ottawa River Watershed is a vast area that stretches across Ontario and Quebec and holds great importance for Canada’s people, economy, and collective history, both in the present and the future. The river has faced numerous floods in recent years due to climate change. The most significant flood occurred in 2019, surpassing a 100-year flood event, and serves as a stark reminder of how climate change impacts our environment. Considering the limitations of machine learning (ML) models, which heavily rely on historical data used during training, they may struggle to accurately predict such “non-experienced” or “unseen” floods that were not encountered during the training process. To tackle this challenge, our study has utilized a combination of numerical modeling and ML to create an integrated methodology. Indeed, a comprehensive dataset of river flow discharge was generated using a numerical model, encompassing a wide range of potential future floods. This significantly improved the ML training process to generalize the accuracy of results. Utilizing this dataset, a novel ML model called the Expanded Framework of Group Method of Data Handling (EFGMDH) has been developed. Its purpose is to provide decision-makers with explicit equations for estimating three crucial hydrodynamic characteristics of the Ottawa River: floodplain width, flow velocity, and river flow depth. These predictions rely on various inputs, including the location of the desired cross-section, river slope, Manning roughness coefficient at different river sections (right, left, and middle), and river flow discharge. To establish practical models for each of the aforementioned hydrodynamic characteristics of the Ottawa River, different input combinations were tested to identify the most optimal ones. The EFGMDH model demonstrated high accuracy throughout the training and testing stages, achieving an R2 value exceeding 0.99. The proposed model’s exceptional performance demonstrates its reliability and practical applications for the study area.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".