MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410241996 · doi:10.18280/mmep.120407

Flow Series Generation from Water Depth Data Using Statistical and Machine Learning Models: The Tocache Station Case

2025· article· en· W4410241996 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Casiano Aguirre-Escalante, David Quispe-Janampa, Ladislao Ruiz-Rengifo, Marco Dueñas-Tuesta, Edilberto Díaz-Quintana, Manuel Reátegui-Inga

Bibliographic record

VenueMathematical Modelling and Engineering Problems · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSeries (stratigraphy)Computer scienceFlow (mathematics)Machine learningArtificial intelligenceGeologyMathematicsGeometry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The integration of spline models and Gaussian processes in hydrological studies represents an innovative approach, particularly for developing countries where flow data are scarce but water level records are more accessible.This study focuses on the 'Bridge Tocache' station in Peru, where a procedure was developed and validated to generate historical flow series using these two models.The spline model uses recorded water levels as input, while the Gaussian process model incorporates both water levels and the month of the year, capturing seasonal patterns.To address missing water level data, a stochastic process based on kernel density estimation was applied, segmenting the year into 24 fortnights.The models performed well, achieving coefficients of determination (R² ) above 0.98.Statistical comparisons confirmed no significant differences between the generated and observed flow series in terms of mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis.The adaptability of these models lies in their independence from geographic-specific assumptions, making them generalizable to other hydrometric stations and regions with limited data availability.This methodology offers a cost-effective alternative for improving hydrological monitoring, reducing reliance on expensive equipment.Its broader applicability extends to sustainable water resource management, enhancing planning and decision-making in regions with limited monitoring capabilities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.035
Threshold uncertainty score0.069

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.116
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.127 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMathematical Modelling and Engineering ProblemsSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207