MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4413075649 · doi:10.14796/jwmm.h556

Prediction of Streamflow in the Brahmani River using GEP, SVM, and MLR Models

2025· article· en· W4413075649 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Water Management Modeling · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicHydrological Forecasting Using AI
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersScience and Engineering Research BoardNational Institute of Technology RourkelaDepartment of Science and Technology, Ministry of Science and Technology, India
KeywordsStreamflowMean squared errorSupport vector machineGene expression programmingRegressionLinear regressionCoefficient of determinationEnvironmental scienceStatisticsMathematicsComputer scienceMachine learningGeographyDrainage basin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study uses four modeling techniques, Gene Expression Programming (GEP), Support Vector Machine (SVM), and Multiple Linear Regression (MLR), to estimate streamflow in the Brahmani River in India. The objective is to develop accurate models that can predict streamflow based on two different hydroclimatic parameters and one river physical parameter. The study utilizes historical data of streamflow and corresponding hydroclimatic variables, including rainfall, temperature, and physical parameter river stage. The dataset is split into training and testing sets to facilitate the creation and validation of models. Statistical measures like Mean Square Error (MSE), Root Mean Square Error (RMSE), and coefficient of determination (R2) are utilized to assess the efficacy of the GEP, SVM, and MLR models in estimating streamflow. The results indicate that all the models can effectively estimate streamflow in the Brahmani River. On the other hand, the GEP model performs better than the MLR and SVM models. Its capacity to capture the intricate interactions between hydroclimatic parameters and streamflow is demonstrated by its lower error values and higher R2 values. The analysis of the models reveals that rainfall, temperature, and river stages can be significant predictors for streamflow estimation of the Brahmani River. These findings emphasize the importance of incorporating multiple hydroclimatic parameters to enhance the accuracy of streamflow predictions. The study also emphasizes the benefits of employing GEP as a modeling tool because of its capacity to handle complicated patterns and non-linear connections. Overall, this research provides valuable insights into streamflow estimation in the Brahmani River using GEP, SVM, and MLR models with different hydroclimatic parameters. The findings contribute to developing reliable tools for water resource management and hydrological forecasting in the region, facilitating informed decision-making based on accurate streamflow predictions.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.085
Threshold uncertainty score0.195

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.189 · 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