Predicting Stream Flows and Dynamics of the Athabasca River Basin Using Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Streamflow forecasting is of great importance in water resource management and flood warnings. Machine learning techniques can be utilized to assist with river flow forecasting. By analyzing historical time-series data on river flows, weather patterns, and other relevant factors, machine learning models can learn patterns and relationships to present predictions about future river flows. In this study, an autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) model was constructed to predict the monthly flows of the Athabasca River at three monitoring stations: Hinton, Athabasca, and Fort MacMurray in Alberta, Canada. The three monitoring stations upstream, midstream, and downstream were selected to represent the different climatological regimes of the Athabasca River. Time-series data were used for model training to identify patterns and correlations using moving averages, exponential smoothing, and Holt–Winters’ method. The model’s forecasting was compared against the observed data. The results show that the determination coefficients were 0.99 at all three stations, indicating strong correlations. The root mean square errors (RMSEs) were 26.19 at Hinton, 61.1 at Athabasca, and 15.703 at Fort MacMurray, respectively, and the mean absolute percentage errors (MAPEs) were 0.34%, 0.44%, and 0.14%, respectively. Therefore, the ARIMA model captured the seasonality patterns and trends in the stream flows at all three stations and demonstrated a robust performance for hydrological forecasting. This provides insights and predictions for water resource management and flood warnings.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".