MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2022030231 · doi:10.1364/oe.17.016192

Spectra of particulate backscattering in natural waters

2009· article· en· W2022030231 on OpenAlexaff
Howard R. Gordon, Marlon R. Lewis, Scott McLean, Michael Twardowski, Scott A. Freeman, Kenneth J. Voss, G. Chris Boynton

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsRadiative transferRadianceAttenuation coefficientAbsorption (acoustics)LambdaSpectral lineDownwellingIrradianceAbsorptancePhysicsSpectral resolutionMaterials scienceAnalytical Chemistry (journal)OpticsChemistryUpwellingGeologyReflectivityEnvironmental chemistryOceanography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Hyperspectral profiles of downwelling irradiance and upwelling radiance in natural waters (oligotrophic and mesotrophic) are combined with inverse radiative transfer to obtain high resolution spectra of the absorption coefficient (a) and the backscattering coefficient (b(b)) of the water and its constituents. The absorption coefficient at the mesotrophic station clearly shows spectral absorption features attributable to several phytoplankton pigments (Chlorophyll a, b, c, and Carotenoids). The backscattering shows only weak spectral features and can be well represented by a power-law variation with wavelength (lambda): b(b) approximately lambda(-n), where n is a constant between 0.4 and 1.0. However, the weak spectral features in b(b)b suggest that it is depressed in spectral regions of strong particle absorption. The applicability of the present inverse radiative transfer algorithm, which omits the influence of Raman scattering, is limited to lambda < 490 nm in oligotrophic waters and lambda < 575 nm in mesotrophic waters.

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 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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.108
Threshold uncertainty score0.218

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.186 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations48
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207