Using Knowledge-Guided Machine Learning To Assess Patterns of Areal Change in Waterbodies across the Contiguous United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lake and reservoir surface areas are an important proxy for freshwater availability. Advancements in machine learning (ML) techniques and increased accessibility of remote sensing data products have enabled the analysis of waterbody surface area dynamics on broad spatial scales. However, interpreting the ML results remains a challenge. While ML provides important tools for identifying patterns, the resultant models do not include mechanisms. Thus, the "black-box" nature of ML techniques often lacks ecological meaning. Using ML, we characterized temporal patterns in lake and reservoir surface area change from 1984 to 2016 for 103,930 waterbodies in the contiguous United States. We then employed knowledge-guided machine learning (KGML) to classify all waterbodies into seven ecologically interpretable groups representing distinct patterns of surface area change over time. Many waterbodies were classified as having "no change" (43%), whereas the remaining 57% of waterbodies fell into other groups representing both linear and nonlinear patterns. This analysis demonstrates the potential of KGML not only for identifying ecologically relevant patterns of change across time but also for unraveling complex processes that underpin those changes.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".