MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4400003211 · doi:10.18280/ijdne.190325

Predictive Modeling of Daily Evapotranspiration in Arid Regions Using Artificial Neural Networks

2024· article· en· W4400003211 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Atheer Saleem Almawla, Basheer Al-Hadeethi, Ahmed Saud Mohammed, Ammar Hatem Kamel

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicPlant Water Relations and Carbon Dynamics
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAridArtificial neural networkEvapotranspirationEnvironmental scienceHydrology (agriculture)Artificial intelligenceComputer scienceEngineeringEcologyBiologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

For thousands of years, people have understood the importance of evapotranspiration (ET) in maintaining the hydrologic cycle and replenishing the world's freshwater supplies.The process of estimating evapotranspiration with a high accuracy in arid regions is considered one of the most important processes in hydrological studies.It has a great importance in the efficient management of water resources and hydrological modeling, as well as in the management of irrigation operations, because these areas are permanently linked to the issue of water scarcity.The prediction of evapotranspiration is a vital step towards management of water resource.This study aims to develop an artificial neural network model to predict the evapotranspiration in arid regions.The RBFNN and GRNN models with six input data were used in present study.The input data are Max.temperature, Min.temperature, Ava.Temperature, Humidity, Wind speed and Solar radiation.The ANN modelling was achieved by using MATLAB with hyperbolic sigmoid transfer function for both input and output layers.Several statistical indicators have been used for examining the model's prediction accuracy.Results show that the current model is a powerful model which has the capability to predict the evapotranspiration with high accuracy.The superiority of the GRNN model is very obvious in comparison to the RBFNN model, where the coefficient of determination for GRNN model was more than 96% in comparison with 94% for RBFNN and the mean square error for GRNN was 0.4 in comparison with 0.52 for RBFNN model.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.050

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.244
Teacher spread0.227 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Design & Nature and EcodynamicsSame topicPlant Water Relations and Carbon DynamicsFrench-language works237,207