MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408091417 · doi:10.3390/w17050718

Data Reconstruction for Groundwater Wells Proximal to Lakes: A Quantitative Assessment for Hydrological Data Imputation

2025· article· en· W4408091417 on OpenAlexaff
Murat Can, Babak Vaheddoost, Mir Jafar Sadegh Safari

Bibliographic record

VenueWater · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrology and Watershed Management Studies
Canadian institutionsToronto Metropolitan University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)Imputation (statistics)Environmental scienceGeologyWater resource managementMissing dataStatisticsGeotechnical engineeringMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The reconstruction of missing groundwater level data is of great importance in hydrogeological and environmental studies. This study provides a comprehensive and sequential approach for the reconstruction of groundwater level data near Lake Uluabat in Bursa, Turkey. This study addresses missing data reconstruction for both past and future events using the Gradient Boosting Regression (GBR) model. The reconstruction process is evaluated through model calibration metrics and changes in the statistical properties of the observed and reconstructed time series. To achieve this goal, the groundwater time series from two observational wells and lake water levels during the January 2004 to September 2019 period are used. The lake water level, the definition of the four seasons via the application of three dummy variables, and time are used as inputs in the prediction of groundwater levels in observation wells. The optimal GBR model calibration is achieved by training the dataset selected based on data gaps in the time series, while test-past and test-future datasets are used for model validation. Afterward, the GBR models are used in reconstructing the missing data both in the pre- and post-training data sets, and the performance of the models are evaluated via the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), Root Mean Square Percentage Error (RMSPE) and Performance Index (PI). The statistical properties of the time series including the probability distribution, maxima, minima, quartiles (Q1–Q3), standard error (SE), coefficient of variation (CV), entropy (H), and error propagation are also measured. It was concluded that GBR provides a good base for missing data reconstruction (the best performance was as high as NSE: 0.99, RMSPE: 0.36, and PI: 1.002). In particular, the standard error and the entropy of the system in one case, respectively, experienced a 53% and 35% rise, which was found to be tolerable and negligible.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.052
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.052
Threshold uncertainty score0.275

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0520.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.005
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.285 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWaterSame topicHydrology and Watershed Management StudiesFrench-language works237,207