MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149463205 · doi:10.1364/ao.52.002019

Generalized ocean color inversion model for retrieving marine inherent optical properties

2013· article· en· W2149463205 on OpenAlex

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

VenueApplied Optics · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsNutrition InternationalUniversité Laval
FundersCommonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research OrganisationNatural Environment Research CouncilSight Research UKNational Aeronautics and Space Administration
KeywordsComputer scienceSoftware as a serviceInversion (geology)SatelliteSoftwareAlgorithmAerospace engineeringEngineeringGeologySoftware development

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ocean color measured from satellites provides daily, global estimates of marine inherent optical properties (IOPs). Semi-analytical algorithms (SAAs) provide one mechanism for inverting the color of the water observed by the satellite into IOPs. While numerous SAAs exist, most are similarly constructed and few are appropriately parameterized for all water masses for all seasons. To initiate community-wide discussion of these limitations, NASA organized two workshops that deconstructed SAAs to identify similarities and uniqueness and to progress toward consensus on a unified SAA. This effort resulted in the development of the generalized IOP (GIOP) model software that allows for the construction of different SAAs at runtime by selection from an assortment of model parameterizations. As such, GIOP permits isolation and evaluation of specific modeling assumptions, construction of SAAs, development of regionally tuned SAAs, and execution of ensemble inversion modeling. Working groups associated with the workshops proposed a preliminary default configuration for GIOP (GIOP-DC), with alternative model parameterizations and features defined for subsequent evaluation. In this paper, we: (1) describe the theoretical basis of GIOP; (2) present GIOP-DC and verify its comparable performance to other popular SAAs using both in situ and synthetic data sets; and, (3) quantify the sensitivities of their output to their parameterization. We use the latter to develop a hierarchical sensitivity of SAAs to various model parameterizations, to identify components of SAAs that merit focus in future research, and to provide material for discussion on algorithm uncertainties and future emsemble applications.

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: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.508

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 head0.027
GPT teacher head0.190
Teacher spread0.163 · 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