Computing Coastal Ocean Surface Currents From Infrared and Ocean Color Satellite Imagery
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many previous studies have demonstrated the viability of estimating advective ocean surface currents from sequential infrared satellite imagery using the maximum cross-correlation (MCC) technique when applied to 1.1-km-resolution Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) thermal infrared imagery. Applied only to infrared imagery, cloud cover and undesirable viewing conditions (gaps in satellite data and edge-of-scan distortions) limit the spatial and temporal coverage of the resulting velocity fields. In addition, MCC currents are limited to those represented by the displacements of thermal surface patterns, and hence, isothermal flow is not detected by the MCC method. The possibility of supplementing MCC currents derived from thermal AVHRR imagery was examined, with currents calculated from 1.1-km-resolution Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) and Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS) ocean color imagery, which often have spatial patterns complementary to the thermal infrared patterns. Statistical comparisons are carried out between yearlong collections of thermal and ocean color derived MCC velocities for the central California Current. It is found that the image surface patterns and resulting MCC velocities complement one another to reduce the effects of poor viewing conditions and isothermal flow. The two velocity products are found to agree quite well with a mean correlation of 0.74, a mean rms difference of 7.4 cm/s, and a mean bias less than 2 cm/s which is considerably smaller than the established absolute error of the MCC method. Merging the thermal and ocean color MCC velocity fields increases the spatial coverage by approximately 25% for this specific case study
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".