MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051842518 · doi:10.1364/ol.37.003165

Development of an explicit algorithm for remote sensing estimation of chlorophyll a using symbolic regression

2012· article· en· W2051842518 on OpenAlexafffund
Shilin Tang, Christine Michel, Pierre Larouche

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Letters · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans Canada
FundersFisheries and Oceans CanadaNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsComputer scienceAlgorithmSymbolic regressionSupport vector machineRegressionRegression analysisSatelliteRemote sensingArtificial intelligenceMachine learningMathematicsGeologyStatistics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The primary mission of ocean color remote sensing is to provide accurate marine bio-optical properties from satellite data. We propose a new algorithm that uses symbolic regression to estimate chlorophyll a (chl a) concentrations from remote sensing reflectance. We compared the accuracy and computational efficiency of the new algorithm to that of the explicit empirical algorithms (OC4v4 and OC4v6), and implicit algorithms based on neural networks or support vector machines (SVM). Results show that the accuracy of the symbolic regression algorithm is higher than that of the OC4 algorithms and comparable to that of implicit algorithms. The improvement is particularly important for high biomass areas (chl a ≥ 3 mg m(-3)) that are often found in optically complex waters. The computational efficiency of the explicit algorithm developed by symbolic regression is comparable to that of the two versions of OC4 algorithms and better than that of implicit algorithms based on SVM. With its good precision and fast processing, the symbolic regression algorithm is a powerful tool for remote sensing of chl a that could be used advantageously in the reprocessing of large datasets.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.985
Threshold uncertainty score0.274

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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.219 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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