MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804892054 · doi:10.1080/07055900.2018.1454295

Evaluation of the Influence of Aquatic Plants and Lake Bottom on the Remote-Sensing Reflectance of Optically Shallow Waters

2018· article· en· W2804892054 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Yuanzhi Zhang, Hongtao Duan, Hongyan Xi, Zhaojun Huang, Jin Yeu Tsou, Tingchen Jiang, X. San Liang

Bibliographic record

VenueATMOSPHERE-OCEAN · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldEnvironmental Science
TopicWater Quality Monitoring and Analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPriority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions
KeywordsReflectivityEnvironmental scienceSecchi diskRemote sensingAquatic plantRadiative transferWaves and shallow waterAquatic ecosystemChlorophyll aAquatic environmentHydrology (agriculture)OceanographyGeologyEcologyMacrophyteNutrientChemistryBiologyOpticsPhysicsEutrophication

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Aquatic plants and lake bottoms in optically shallow waters (OSWs) wield great influence on reflectance spectra, resulting in the inapplicability of most existing bio-optical models for water colour remote sensing in lakes. Based on radiative transfer theory and measured spectra from a campaign for Lake Taihu in October 2008, absorption and backscattering coefficients were used to simulate the remote-sensing reflectance, which are considered to be reliable if matched to their measured counterparts. Several cases of measured spectra at different depths, Secchi disk depth transparency, and aquatic plant height and coverage were analyzed thoroughly for spectral properties. The contribution of aquatic plants was evaluated and compared with the measured and simulated remote-sensing reflectance values. This is helpful for removing the influence of aquatic plants and lake bottoms from the spectra and for constructing an improved chlorophyll a retrieval model for OSWs, such as that for Lake Taihu, China.

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 score0.137
Threshold uncertainty score0.212

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 science0.0000.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueATMOSPHERE-OCEANSame topicWater Quality Monitoring and AnalysisFrench-language works237,207