Analysis of Optimal Water Levels in the Great Lakes Based on A Comprehensive Satisfaction Function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to analyze the optimal water levels in the Great Lakes to meet the needs of multiple stakeholders and thus achieve sustainable development in the region. The Weight-Function-Synthesis-Optimization (WFSO) model was used in this study. By classifying the water level needs of different interest groups, their respective satisfaction functions are established, and the overall satisfaction function is formed by weighting. In addition, the quadratic polynomial function is used to fit the optimal monthly water level time series of Lake Ontario, and the fitting effect is good, fully reflecting the periodic and seasonal changes in the water level of Lake Ontario. By considering the priorities of various stakeholders, this paper defines an overall satisfaction metric, "allsa," and identifies a time series of monthly optimal water levels for Lake Ontario and beyond. The ideal water level was determined to be 74.9 meters. The study results suggest that maintaining this water level can maximize the satisfaction of ecosystems, transportation, real estate, terminals, and hydropower companies, and promote sustainable development of the region.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".