MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399285245 · doi:10.1007/s42452-024-05994-z

Evaluation of the support vector regression (SVR) and the random forest (RF) models accuracy for streamflow prediction under a data-scarce basin in Morocco

2024· article· en· W4399285245 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueDiscover Applied Sciences · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversité du Québec à Trois-Rivières
FundersFondation OCPUniversité Mohammed VI Polytechnique
KeywordsRandom forestSupport vector machineStreamflowRegressionDecision treePredictive modellingStructural basinArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceData miningDrainage basinMachine learningGeographyStatisticsGeologyMathematicsCartographyGeomorphology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Streamflow prediction is a key variable for water resources management. It becomes more important in semi-arid regions such as the Tensift river basin in Morocco, where water resources are facing a severe drought and the demand is continuously increasing. The present analysis focuses on evaluating Machine Learning techniques, namely support vector regression (SVR) and Random Forest (RF) against the multiple linear regression (MLR) for daily streamflow forecasting in the mountainous sub-basin of Rheraya between 2003 and 2016. The results show that SVR performed best, followed by RF and MLR. In measurable terms and regarding mean performance, SVR exhibited the higher Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency score (NSE = 0.59) and a lower root mean squared error (RMSE = 1.18 $$\text {m}^3\,\text {s}^{-1}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext><mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace/><mml:msup><mml:mtext>s</mml:mtext><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math> ) compared to RF (NSE = 0.53, RMSE = 1.18 $$\text {m}^3\,\text {s}^{-1}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext><mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace/><mml:msup><mml:mtext>s</mml:mtext><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math> ) and MLR (NSE = 0.54, RMSE = 1.01 $$\text {m}^3\,\text {s}^{-1}$$ <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mtext>m</mml:mtext><mml:mn>3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace/><mml:msup><mml:mtext>s</mml:mtext><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn>1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math> ). Furthermore,the available time series was too short to properly capture the full range of streamflow variability, which reduced the prediction performance outside of the calibration conditions. These findings suggest that ML algorithms, particularly SVR, can provide accurate streamflow estimation useful for water resources management when trained on a representative period. The results highlight the capacity of Machine Learning algorithms, specifically SVR, to augment streamflow prediction for enhanced water resource management in arid regions.

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)0.005
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 score0.048
Threshold uncertainty score0.423

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.236 · 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