MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2771627297 · doi:10.1109/igarss.2017.8127391

Evaluating Sentinel-2A atmospherically corrected reflectance using the 6SV model

2017· article· en· W2771627297 on OpenAlexaffabout
Yingjie Li, Qingmiao Ma

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicRemote Sensing in Agriculture
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReflectivityAERONETAtmospheric correctionRemote sensingEnvironmental scienceAerosolAtmosphere (unit)Vegetation (pathology)Bidirectional reflectance distribution functionAtmospheric sciencesMeteorologyGeologyOpticsGeographyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, the Bottom-Of-Atmosphere (BOA) reflectance over Egbert, Ontario, Canada on September 24, 2016, as obtained by the Sentinel-2A Multi-Spectral Imager and corrected by the Sentinel-2 atmospheric Correction (Sen2Cor) software, was evaluated based on the 6SV atmospherically corrected reflectance. The aerosol and water vapor parameters used in the 6SV model were obtained from the AERONET data. The evaluation results showed that for the visible bands, the Sen2Cor BOA reflectance was lower than the 6SV BOA reflectance, with a maximum relative bias of -36.5%, due to an overestimation of the aerosol optical depth retrieved by Sen2Cor. The bias of the BOA reflectance could also affect the vegetation index (VI) calculation. Four VIs were calculated and compared using the different BOA reflectance. The maximum relative bias was 18.2%. The study shows that the BOA reflectance corrected by Sen2Cor should be treated with some degree of caution, especially for the visible bands and VIs.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: Simulation or modeling
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.123

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.082
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations4
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicRemote Sensing in Agriculture→French-language works237,207→