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 OpenAlexaff
Kebiao Mao, Hao Li, Deyong Hu, J. Wang, J X Huang, Z.-L. Li, Qi Zhou, Huajun Tang

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.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.065
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

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
GenreMethods

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

Citations13
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOptics ExpressSame topicCalibration and Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207