Chlorophyll-a Estimation Around the Antarctica Peninsula Using Satellite Algorithms: Hints from Field Water Leaving Reflectance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ocean color remote sensing significantly contributes to our understanding of phytoplankton distribution and abundance and primary productivity in the Southern Ocean (SO). However, the current SO in situ optical database is still insufficient and unevenly distributed. This limits the ability to produce robust and accurate measurements of satellite-based chlorophyll. Based on data collected on cruises around the Antarctica Peninsula (AP) on January 2014 and 2016, this research intends to enhance our knowledge of SO water and atmospheric optical characteristics and address satellite algorithm deficiency of ocean color products. We collected high resolution in situ water leaving reflectance (±1 nm band resolution), simultaneous in situ chlorophyll-a concentrations and satellite (MODIS and VIIRS) water leaving reflectance. Field samples show that clouds have a great impact on the visible green bands and are difficult to detect because NASA protocols apply the NIR band as a cloud contamination threshold. When compared to global case I water, water around the AP has lower water leaving reflectance and a narrower blue-green band ratio, which explains chlorophyll-a underestimation in high chlorophyll-a regions and overestimation in low chlorophyll-a regions. VIIRS shows higher spatial coverage and detection accuracy than MODIS. After coefficient improvement, VIIRS is able to predict chlorophyll a with 53% accuracy.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".