Performance evaluation of ocean color satellite models for deriving accurate chlorophyll estimates in the Gulf of Saint Lawrence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract. The understanding of phytoplankton dynamics in the Gulf of the Saint Lawrence (GSL) is critical for managing major fisheries off the Canadian East coast. In this study, the accuracy of two atmospheric correction techniques (NASA standard algorithm, SA, and Kuchinke's spectral optimization, KU) and three ocean color inversion models (Carder's empirical for SeaWiFS (Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-View Sensor), EC, Lee's quasi-analytical, QAA, and Garver- Siegel-Maritorena semi-empirical, GSM) for estimating the phytoplankton absorption coefficient at 443 nm (aph(443)) and the chlorophyll concentration (chl) in the GSL is examined. Each model was validated based on SeaWiFS images and shipboard measurements obtained during May of 2000 and April 2001. In general, aph(443) estimates derived from coupling KU and QAA models presented the smallest differences with respect to in situ determinations as measured by High Pressure liquid Chromatography measurements (median absolute bias per cruise up to 0.005, RMSE up to 0.013). A change on the inversion approach used for estimating aph(443) values produced up to 43.4% increase on prediction error as inferred from the median relative bias per cruise. Likewise, the impact of applying different atmospheric correction schemes was secondary and represented an additive error of up to 24.3%. By using SeaDAS (SeaWiFS Data Analysis System) default values for the optical cross section of phytoplankton (i.e., aph(443) = aph(443)/chl = 0.056 m2mg−1), the median relative bias of our chl estimates as derived from the most accurate spaceborne aph(443) retrievals and with respect to in situ determinations increased up to 29%.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".