MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2053630957 · doi:10.5589/m03-047

Mapping lake water clarity with Landsat images in Wisconsin, U.S.A.

2004· article· en· W2053630957 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jonathan Chipman, T. M. Lillesand, Jeffrey E. Schmaltz, Jill E Leale, Mark J Nordheim

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Aeronautics and Space AdministrationNational Science Foundation
KeywordsThematic MapperRemote sensingRadianceSatellite imagerySecchi diskCLARITYCartographyGeographySatelliteThematic mapPhysical geographyHydrology (agriculture)Environmental scienceGeologyEcologyEutrophication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Landsat thematic mapper (TM) and enhanced thematic mapper plus (ETM+) images are being used to map lake water clarity region-wide in the Upper Midwest states of Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan using a standardized image processing protocol. In Wisconsin, lake clarity estimates have been produced for 8645 lakes in the 1999-2001 time period. In addition to satellite imagery, the protocol relies on Secchi disk data collected by a network of citizen volunteers for development and validation of models. The most significant term in the regression model relating the satellite imagery to the field data is the ratio of spectral radiance values in the blue and red bands (ratio of Landsat band 1 to Landsat band 3). The resulting database of satellite-derived lake water clarity estimates represents an important new resource for lake managers in the region, and for those studying the linkages between lakes and their surrounding landscapes.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.409
Threshold uncertainty score0.813

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.172
Teacher spread0.162 · 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 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

Citations90
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Remote SensingSame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207