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 OpenAlexvenueno aff
Padmini Behera, Aryalaxmi Priyadarshini, Kishanjit Kumar Khatua

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.

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)0.001
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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

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 venueJournal of Water Management ModelingSame topicHydrological Forecasting Using AIFrench-language works237,207