MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2068819773 · doi:10.5589/m03-051

Mapping of the North Sea turbid coastal waters using SeaWiFS data

2004· article· en· W2068819773 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
H.J. van der Woerd, R. Pasterkamp

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Remote Sensing · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersGoddard Space Flight CenterEuropean Space AgencyUniversity of Dundee
KeywordsSeaWiFSRemote sensingSatelliteAtmospheric correctionEnvironmental scienceData setData qualityCurrent (fluid)OceanographyMeteorologyGeographyGeologyComputer scienceEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The spatial–temporal coverage provided by optical remote sensing can be effectively used to overcome some of the severe deficiencies in the current in situ monitoring programs for water-quality parameters in the coastal zone. We present the outcome of a project to map the concentrations fields of total suspended matter in the North Sea, based on data from the sea-viewing wide field-of-view sensor (SeaWiFS) instrument. Next to a good infrastructure and standard automatic processing, a reliable atmospheric correction proved to be essential. A single-band algorithm, based on a representative set of inherent optical properties, is presented. The satellite data and data from a standard in situ monitoring program near the Dutch coast are compared. For the year 2000, a total of 129 images could be used to present actual information and to derive monthly mean patterns and trends in the dynamic North Sea system. The results show the capacity of satellite data to provide excellent temporal coverage. Spatial variations of suspended sediment, often caused by input from rivers plus wind- and wave-induced resuspension over shallow areas, are covered.

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)0.000
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 score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.192

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.198
Teacher spread0.167 · 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

Citations32
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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