Validation of Ocean Color Remote Sensing Reflectance Using Autonomous Floats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The use of autonomous profiling floats for observational estimates of radiometric quantities in the ocean is explored, and the use of this platform for validation of satellite-based estimates of remote sensing reflectance in the ocean is examined. This effort includes comparing quantities estimated from float and satellite data at nominal wavelengths of 412, 443, 488, and 555 nm, and examining sources and magnitudes of uncertainty in the float estimates. This study had 65 occurrences of coincident high-quality observations from floats and MODIS Aqua and 15 occurrences of coincident high-quality observations floats and Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS). The float estimates of remote sensing reflectance are similar to the satellite estimates, with disagreement of a few percent in most wavelengths. The variability of the float–satellite comparisons is similar to the variability of in situ–satellite comparisons using a validation dataset from the Marine Optical Buoy (MOBY). This, combined with the agreement of float-based and satellite-based quantities, suggests that floats are likely a good platform for validation of satellite-based estimates of remote sensing reflectance.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 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".