The DOI matches its Crossref record; 4 of the 4 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An empirical comparison of machine learning techniques for dam behaviour modelling
Open accessAbstract
Predictive models are essential in dam safety assessment. Both deterministic and statistical models applied in the day-to-day practice have demonstrated to be useful, although they show relevant limitations at the same time. On another note, powerful learning algorithms have been developed in the field of machine learning (ML), which have been applied to solve practical problems. The work aims at testing the prediction capability of some state-of-the-art algorithms to model dam behaviour, in terms of displacements and leakage. Models based on random forests (RF), boosted regression trees (BRT), neural networks (NN), support vector machines (SVM) and multivariate adaptive regression splines (MARS) are fitted to predict 14 target variables. Prediction accuracy is compared with the conventional statistical model, which shows poorer performance on average. BRT models stand out as the most accurate overall, followed by NN and RF. It was also verified that the model fit can be improved by removing the records of the first years of dam functioning from the training set.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Greedy function approximation: A gradient boosting machine
Friedman, J. H. (2001) · The Annals of Statistics · doi:10.1214/aos/1013203451 · Cited by 30,731
The Elements of Statistical Learning
Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., & Friedman, J. (2009) · Springer Series in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-84858-7 · Cited by 25,970
ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis
Wickham, H. (2009) · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-98141-3 · Cited by 14,447
Variable selection using random forests
Genuer, R., Poggi, J.-M., & Tuleau-Malot, C. (2010) · Pattern Recognition Letters · doi:10.1016/j.patrec.2010.03.014 · Cited by 2,619
Cited by
Li, Y., Bao, T., Gao, Z., Shu, X., Zhang, K., Xie, L., & Zhang, Z. (2022) · Structural Health Monitoring · doi:10.1177/14759217211009780 · Cited by 132
Kang, F., Liu, X., & Li, J. (2020) · Structural Health Monitoring · doi:10.1177/1475921719872939 · Cited by 100
Metadata
- Authors
- Salazar, F., Toledo, M. A., Oñate, E., & Morán, R.
- Venue
- Structural Safety
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-09
- Volume
- 56
- Pages
- 9-17
- ISSN
- 0167-4730 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1590893204
- Cited by
- 225
- References
- 4
- FWCI
- 17.61
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: An empirical comparison of machine learning techniques for dam behaviour modelling. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1016/j.strusafe.2015.05.001
- The paper
- Salazar, F., Toledo, M. A., Oñate, E., & Morán, R. (2015). An empirical comparison of machine learning techniques for dam behaviour modelling. Structural Safety. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.strusafe.2015.05.001
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.