MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2092065588 · doi:10.1364/oe.18.009542

Estimation of water vapor content in near-infrared bands around 1 μm from MODIS data by using RM–NN

2010· article· en· W2092065588 on OpenAlex
Kebiao Mao, Hao Li, Deyong Hu, J. Wang, J X Huang, Z.-L. Li, Qi Zhou, Huajun Tang

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueOptics Express · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCalibration and Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRadianceWater vaporStandard deviationGCM transcription factorsContent (measure theory)Artificial neural networkRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceInfraredSpectrometerMeteorologyOpticsComputer scienceMathematicsPhysicsStatisticsArtificial intelligenceGeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An algorithm based on the radiance transfer model (RM) and a dynamic learning neural network (NN) for estimating water vapor content from moderate resolution imaging spectrometer (MODIS) 1B data is developed in this paper. The MODTRAN4 is used to simulate the sun-surface-sensor process with different conditions. The dynamic learning neural network is used to estimate water vapor content. Analysis of the simulation data indicates that the mean and standard deviation of estimation error are under 0.06 gcm(-2 )and 0.08 gcm(-2). The comparison analysis indicates that the estimation result by RM-NN is comparable to that of a MODIS water vapor content product (MYD05_L2). Finally, validation with ground measurement data shows that RM-NN can be used to accurately estimate the water vapor content from MODIS 1B data, and the mean and standard deviation of the estimation error are about 0.12 gcm(-2 )and 0.18 gcm(-2).

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.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.577
Threshold uncertainty score0.330

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.261
Teacher spread0.196 · 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