On the Atmospheric Correction of Antarctic Airborne Hyperspectral Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The first airborne hyperspectral campaign in the Antarctic Peninsula region was carried out by the British Antarctic Survey and partners in February 2011. This paper presents an insight into the applicability of currently available radiative transfer modelling and atmospheric correction techniques for processing airborne hyperspectral data in this unique coastal Antarctic environment. Results from the Atmospheric and Topographic Correction version 4 (ATCOR-4) package reveal absolute reflectance values somewhat in line with laboratory measured spectra, with Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) values of 5% in the visible near infrared (0.4–1 µm) and 8% in the shortwave infrared (1–2.5 µm). Residual noise remains present due to the absorption by atmospheric gases and aerosols, but certain parts of the spectrum match laboratory measured features very well. This study demonstrates that commercially available packages for carrying out atmospheric correction are capable of correcting airborne hyperspectral data in the challenging environment present in Antarctica. However, it is anticipated that future results from atmospheric correction could be improved by measuring in situ atmospheric data to generate atmospheric profiles and aerosol models, or with the use of multiple ground targets for calibration and validation.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".