MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4411333668 · doi:10.1016/j.asej.2025.103511

Beyond conventional modeling: A cutting-edge hybrid IAER-AMT decision-tree-based algorithm for high-resolution river turbidity prediction

2025· article· en· W4411333668 on OpenAlexafffund
Khabat Khosravi, Aitazaz Ahsan Faroouqe, Ali Reza Shahvaran, Prasad Daggupati, Salim Heddam, Javad Hatamiafkoueieh

Bibliographic record

VenueAin Shams Engineering Journal · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsUniversity of GuelphUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Prince Edward Island
FundersDepartment of Energy, Environment and Climate ActionGouvernement de l'Île-du-Prince-ÉdouardNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaRUDN UniversityUniversity of WaterlooUniversity of Prince Edward IslandAtlantic Canada Opportunities AgencyRazi UniversityUniversity of Guelph
KeywordsAlgorithmDecision treeTurbidityEnhanced Data Rates for GSM EvolutionResolution (logic)Computer scienceTree (set theory)GeologyArtificial intelligenceMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Water Turbidity (TU) is a widely used indicator of water quality. Given the time-consuming nature of direct TU measurement, developing an accurate predictive model is imperative. In this study, the alternating model tree (AMT) and its ensemble version through iterative absolute error regression (IAER), bootstrap aggregating (BA), weighted instance handler wrapper (WIHW), and random subspace (RS) were used to predict TU at Clackamas River, USA. Daily time-series data of the physicochemical water quality variables from 2006 to 2023, including water temperature (Tw), specific conductance (SC), dissolved oxygen (DO), pH, as well as physical river parameters, including daily water discharge (Q) and water stage (WS), were used as potential input variables to predict TU. The manual approach, principal component analysis (PCA), and correlation-based feature selection subset evaluation (CfsSubsetEval) techniques were compared under different input scenarios. Finally, the performance of the models was evaluated using various statistical metrics, including the coefficient of determination (R 2 ), root mean squared error (RMSE), percentage of bias (PBIAS), Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), and root mean standard deviation ratio (RSR). WS had the highest impact on TU prediction, whereas Tw was less correlated. In addition, the input scenario that included all variables led to the highest model performance. Based on the testing dataset, the novel IAER-AMT hybrid algorithm outperformed others, achieving an RMSE of 1.20 Formazin Nephelometric Units (FNU), an NSE of 0.72, a PBIAS of 3.17 %, and an RSR of 0.53 followed by BA-AMT (RMSE = 1.30 FNU, NSE = 0.67, PBIAS = −9.73%, and RSR = 0.57), WIHW-AMT (RMSE = 1.34 FNU, NSE = 0.65, PBIAS = −0.35%, RSR = 0.58), RS-AMT (RMSE = 1.37 FNU, NSE = 0.64, PBIAS = −20.95%, and RSR = 0.60), and AMT (RMSE = 1.38 FNU, NSE = 0.63, PBIAS = −26.81%, and RSR = 0.60).

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.213 · 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

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAin Shams Engineering JournalSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207