MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2088679436 · doi:10.1117/12.616821

Impact of sea ice on ocean color remote sensing

2005· article· en· W2088679436 on OpenAlexaff
Simon Bélanger, Jens K. Ehn, Marcel Babin

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIE · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicInfrared Target Detection Methodologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
FundersFreie Universität Berlin
KeywordsRadianceRemote sensingOcean colorEnvironmental scienceSea iceAtmosphere (unit)Atmospheric correctionWavelengthPixelOpticsGeologyReflectivityPhysicsSatelliteMeteorology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We study two types of contamination of Ocean Color data related to the presence of sea ice. The first type, referred to as the adjacency effect, is the contamination of the radiance from the intended target by photons scattered in atmosphere towards the sensor but originating from a bright object such as sea ice nearby the target. The second type results from the presence of sub-pixel sea ice. In the case of the adjacency effect, the contribution of the icy environment to the top-of-atmosphere signal in the visible is not fully removed by the atmospheric correction algorithm, leading to an overestimation of the water-leaving reflectance. This is due to the strong spectral increase of atmospheric scattering with decreasing wavelength. The adjacency effect being more important at short wavelengths, the chlorophyll estimates based on the blue-to-green ratio will tend to decrease as the field of view approaches the ice edge. Conversely, contamination by sub-pixel sea ice results in an underestimation of the water-leaving reflectance, especially in the blue domain, and consequently to an overestimation of the chlorophyll concentration. The magnitude of the errors depends on the type of ice contaminating the pixel. It is more important for ice with high reflectance ratios for the wavebands 765 to 865 nm. Absolute error on the water-leaving reflectance up to 0.7% was observed, which is not acceptable for Ocean Color applications intending inversion of inherent optical properties from the absolute radiance, and for validation and vicarious calibration activities.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.244 · 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 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

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of SPIE, the International Society for Optical Engineering/Proceedings of SPIESame topicInfrared Target Detection MethodologiesFrench-language works237,207