Groundwater Storage Estimation in the Saskatchewan River Basin Using GRACE/GRACE-FO Gravimetric Data and Machine Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Climate change is having a significant impact on groundwater storage, affecting water resources in many parts of the world. To characterize this impact, remote sensing and machine learning are essential tools to analyze the data accurately and efficiently. This study aims to predicting the variations of groundwater storage (GWS) using GRACE/GRACE-FO and multi-source remote sensing data, combined with machine learning techniques. The approach was applied over the Canadian Prairies region. The study area was classified into three zones of different aquifer potentials (low, medium, and high) using a combination of remote sensing data and the Classification and Regression Trees (CART) approach. The prediction model was developed using a machine-learning approach based on multiple linear regression to estimate GWS variations as a function of various environmental parameters. The results showed that the developed model was able to predict GWS variations with satisfactory accuracy (up to 95% of the explained variance) and good robustness (96% success rate). They also provided a better understanding of the variations in groundwater storage in the Canadian Prairies. Therefore, this work provides a promising method for predicting GWS, which could eventually be applied to other similar environmental conditions.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".