MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2589056198 · doi:10.1175/jtech-d-16-0176.1

Assessment of Radiometric Data from a Buoy in the St. Lawrence Estuary

2017· article· en· W2589056198 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Simon Bélanger, Claudia Carrascal-Leal, Thomas Jaegler, Pierre Larouche, Peter S. Galbraith

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic Technology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEarth and Planetary Sciences
TopicMarine and coastal ecosystems
Canadian institutionsFisheries and Oceans CanadaUniversité du Québec à Rimouski
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanadian Space Agency
KeywordsRadianceVisible Infrared Imaging Radiometer SuiteBuoyEnvironmental scienceRadiometerRemote sensingIrradianceOcean colorZenithUpwellingSolar zenith angleModerate-resolution imaging spectroradiometerSpectroradiometerRadiometryGeologyMeteorologySatelliteOceanographyOpticsPhysicsReflectivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Fisheries and Oceans Canada maintains a network of scientific buoys in the St. Lawrence estuary and gulf. Among a suite of environmental parameters documented, the in-water upwelling radiance is measured using an ocean color radiometer located underneath the center of the buoy. The shadow effect from the 1.05-m-radius buoy on the measured upwelling radiance is estimated and empirical models to correct for it are proposed. On average, the shading error (i.e., the percent of missing radiance) was and for the 555- and 412-nm channels, respectively. Two analytical models were tested to predict the shading error using measured inherent optical properties, the sun zenith angle, and the fraction of diffuse sky irradiance. Neglecting light scattering led to overestimates of the shading error. In contrast, the bias was removed when the scattering coefficient was accounted for, but the overall error was only barely improved (root-mean-square error ). Empirical relationships based on the uncorrected reflectance ratio measured by the buoy were used to predict both the shading error and the diffuse attenuation of the upwelling radiance, two quantities needed to calculate remote sensing reflectance . Overall, was retrieved with an averaged absolute percent difference ranging from 12% to 20%, which appears adequate for the validation of ocean color data such as the Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS- Aqua ) and Visible Infrared Imaging Radiometer Suite (VIIRS) products in the optically complex waters of the St. Lawrence estuary.

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 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)0.001
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.128
Threshold uncertainty score0.296

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.237 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations16
Published2017
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Atmospheric and Oceanic TechnologySame topicMarine and coastal ecosystemsFrench-language works237,207