MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4404524549 · doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2024.123305

Machine learning models for prediction of nutrient concentrations in surface water in an agricultural watershed

2024· article· en· W4404524549 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.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Environmental Management · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsMinistry of the Environment, Conservation and ParksUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsWatershedAgricultureNutrientSurface waterEnvironmental scienceWater qualityHydrology (agriculture)Agricultural engineeringWater resource managementMachine learningEnvironmental engineeringComputer scienceEngineeringEcologyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prediction and quantification of nutrient concentrations in surface water has gained substantial attention during recent decades because excess nutrients released from agricultural and urban watersheds can significantly deteriorate surface water quality. Machine learning (ML) models are considered an effective tool for better understanding and characterization of nutrient release from agricultural fields to surface water. However, to date, no systematic investigations have examined the implementation of different classification and regression ML models in agricultural settings to predict nutrient concentrations in surface water using a group of input variables including climatological (e.g., precipitation), hydrological (e.g., stream flow) and field characteristics (i.e., land and crop use). In the current study, multiple classification (e.g., decision trees) and regression (e.g., regression trees) ML models were applied on a dataset pertaining to surface water quality in an agricultural watershed in southern Ontario, Canada (i.e., Upper Parkhill watershed). The target variables of these models were the nutrient concentrations in surface water including nitrate, total phosphorus, soluble reactive phosphorus, and total dissolved phosphorus. These target variables were predicted using physical and chemical water parameters of surface water (e.g., temperature and DO), climatological, hydrological, and field conditions as the input variables. The performance of these different models was assessed using various evaluation metrics such as classification accuracy (CA) and coefficient of determination (R 2 ) for classification and regression models, respectively. In general, both the ensemble bagged trees and logistic regression (CA ≥ 0.72), and exponential Gaussian process regression (R 2 ≥ 0.93) models were the optimal classification and regression ML algorithms, respectively, where they resulted in the highest prediction accuracy of the target variables. The insights and outcomes of the current study demonstrates that ML models can be employed to effectively predict and quantify the nutrient concentrations in surface waters to supplement field-collected monitoring data in agricultural watersheds, assisting in maintaining high quality of the available surface water resources. • Machine learning models were employed on a data from an agricultural watershed. • Target variables were nutrient concentrations in stream water in the watershed. • Ensemble bagged trees was the optimal classification model for the target variables. • Exponential Gaussian process regression accurately predicted nutrient concentrations. • Model results can be used for predicting nutrient concentrations in stream water.

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)0.000
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 score0.119
Threshold uncertainty score0.298

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.195 · 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