MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401411401 · doi:10.52151/jae2024613.1852

Reliability of Artificial Intelligence-based Models Compared to Numerical Model for Predicting Groundwater Level under Changing Climate

2024· article· en· W4401411401 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

VenueJournal of Agricultural Engineering (India) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReliability (semiconductor)Environmental scienceGroundwaterReliability engineeringClimate changeComputer scienceEngineeringEcologyGeotechnical engineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Groundwater modeling is a crucial tool for simulating groundwater level behavior under future climate change scenarios, and for studying the effects of water management strategies on sustainability of groundwater resources. In this study, two types of models, namely, a physical-based numerical model called MODFLOW, and a data-driven model called Genetic Algorithm-based Multilayer Perceptron (MLP-GA), were evaluated for the reliable predictions of groundwater levels in the semi-arid region of the Karnal district, Haryana. Seven hybrid MLP-GA models were developed with different combinations of input variables such as rainfall, crop evapotranspiration, deep percolation, and irrigation water requirement. The numerical model and hybrid MLP-GA models were calibrated and validated using groundwater-level data from the pre-monsoon period. Among the hybrid models, the model M-1 with four input variables (crop evapotranspiration, rainfall, deep percolation, and applied irrigation water) and 4-29-1 (four input nodes, 29 neurons in the hidden layer, and one output node) model architecture performed the best, but the numerical model showed superiority over the MLP-GA models. The numerical model and M-1 model were used to predict future groundwater levels under projected climate change scenario. According to the numerical model, under the RCP4.5 scenario, groundwater levels in the study area were projected to decline by 7.7 meters by the year 2039 compared to the reference year of 2015. The M-1 model predicted decline of 5.0 meter by the year 2039. The study concluded that all input variables are essential for accurately simulating groundwater levels using MLP-GA models, and that the numerical model is more reliable for assessing the impact of climate change on groundwater behavior during future periods.

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)0.001
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 score0.408
Threshold uncertainty score0.530

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.256
Teacher spread0.200 · 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