Chlorophyll-a Concentration Retrieval in the Optically Complex Waters of the St. Lawrence Estuary and Gulf Using Principal Component Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Empirical methods based on band ratios to infer chlorophyll-a concentration by satellite do not perform well over the optically complex waters of the St. Lawrence Estuary and Gulf. Using a dataset of 93 match-ups, we explore an alternative method relying on empirical orthogonal functions (EOF) to develop an algorithm that relates the satellite-derived remote sensing reflectances to in situ chlorophyll-a concentration for the Sea-viewing Wide Field-of-view Sensor (SeaWiFS). Results show that an accuracy of 41% at retrieving chlorophyll-a concentration can be reached using the EOF method compared to 140% for the widely-used Ocean Chlorophyll 4 (OC4v4) empirical algorithm, 53% for the Garver-Siegel-Maritorena (GSM01) and 54% for the Generalized Inherent Optical Property (GIOP) semi-analytical algorithms. This result is possible because the EOF approach is able to extract region-specific radiometric features from the satellite remote sensing reflectances that are related to absorption properties of optical components (water, coloured dissolved organic matter and chlorophyll-a) using the visible SeaWiFS channels. The method could easily be used with other ocean-colour satellite sensors (e.g., MODIS, MERIS, VIIRS, OLCI) to extend the time series for the St. Lawrence Estuary and Gulf waters.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".