MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137662901 · doi:10.1109/tgrs.2002.802455

An automated, dynamic threshold cloud-masking algorithm for daytime AVHRR images over land

2002· article· en· W2137662901 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Alan Di Vittorio, William J. Emery

Bibliographic record

VenueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote Sensing · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEngineering
TopicCalibration and Measurement Techniques
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of British Columbia
KeywordsPixelComputer scienceCloud computingThresholdingChannel (broadcasting)Remote sensingAdvanced very-high-resolution radiometerMasking (illustration)DaytimeComputer visionArtificial intelligenceAlgorithmImage (mathematics)SatelliteGeologyTelecommunicationsPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

An operational scheme for masking cloud-contaminated pixels in Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) daytime data over land is developed, evaluated, and presented. Dynamic thresholding is used with channel 1 reflectance data, channel 3 minus channel 4 temperature difference data, and channel 4 minus channel 5 temperature difference data to automatically create a cloud mask for a single image. The dynamic thresholds can be applied in two different ways: to each pixel individually and to classes of pixels determined by an unsupervised minimum Euclidian distance classifier. The dynamic threshold cloud-masking (DTCM) algorithm presented in this study is used to produce cloud masks based on three different configurations: two channels and individual pixels, three channels and individual pixels, and three channels and classes of pixels. These cloud masks are compared with control masks that were created by visual inspection. The results from the clouds from AVHRR (CLAVR) algorithm and the cloud and surface parameter retrieval (CASPR) algorithm are also compared with the control masks. The results of the comparisons indicate that DTCM, applied on a pixel-by-pixel basis, correctly identifies more clear pixels than CASPR or CLAVR while correctly identifying a comparable or higher number of cloud-contaminated pixels.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.253
Teacher spread0.239 · 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

Citations82
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIEEE Transactions on Geoscience and Remote SensingSame topicCalibration and Measurement TechniquesFrench-language works237,207